Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Austin Uvedale Morgan Hudson, baronet, Member for Lewisham, North, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further consideration he has given to the introduction of a discriminatory tax relief in favour of the exhibition of British films as a means of modifying the incidence of entertainments tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): As this is a tax matter, the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement or indeed to add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 2nd August about Government policy in regard to assistance for British film production.

Mr. Swingler: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is being considered? In his review of the Entertainments Duty, is he not considering this very excellent proposal for giving financial encouragement to British film production as an alternative to introducing an extra tax to get the funds?

Mr. Brooke: I well remember the hon. Member asking a Question about this point on, I think, 14th February, 1956. We shall certainly take into account anything which the hon. Member has said.

Motor Fuel Rationing (Revenue Losses)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much a year he estimates his revenue from oil and petrol duty will be reduced as a result of oil and petrol rationing, and the reduced supply of oil to this country resulting from the blocking of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expected loss of revenue in consequence of petrol rationing.

Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 27th November.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I saw that reply. I cannot remember the number of millions of pounds which are to be lost to the Treasury. Can we have an assurance that the Minister will not try to recoup these losses by putting a further tax on petrol? Is he aware that this Government are continually pushing up the cost of living, and we want no more of it?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member is again asking me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Bence: Will the Minister give an assurance that, in this time of shortage and scarcity of petrol, he will not take any steps to increase the price but rather will keep the price controlled?

Mr. Brooke: I am concerned only with the tax aspect. I am not concerned with the price of petrol.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Without anticipating the next Budget, but looking back to the past one, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Chancellor still thinks that the economy of the country depends upon achieving £100 million savings over and above the figures of the Budget?

Mr. Brooke: What my right hon. Friend told the House a day or two ago was that he was expecting an overall Budget surplus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Overall?"]—a Budget surplus above the line not far short of what he had originally anticipated; and the deficit below the line will certainly be considerably lower.

Middle East Situation (Cost)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his recent estimate of the cost of Her Majesty's Government's armed conflict with Egypt of £35 to £50 million included the loss of the military supplies, stores, and installations in the Suez Canal, the loss of oil and trading difficulties resultant upon the closing of this Canal, and the subsequent petrol and oil rationing; and whether he will give an amended figure taking into account all of these factors.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said on 20th November, the figure of £35–50 million related solely to additional military expenditure falling on the Budget. As regards the other matters in the hon. Member's Question, I would refer to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on 20th November, and by my hon. friend the Economic Secretary to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 22nd November.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Financial Secretary aware that matters are now getting to such a state that we are spending £50 million here, £30 million there and £50 million somewhere else? Will he state in HANSARD, or in answer to a Question, the total cost up to date of all these various amounts that he is now giving in fifties and hundreds?

Mr. Brooke: I have given the essential figures here and have referred the hon. Gentleman to the others. I am sure that he can do the necessary addition and substraction.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what figure he now estimates the total cost to the Exchequer, including loss of revenue from taxation, resulting from military operations in the Middle East and the blocking of the Suez Canal.

Mr. H. Brooke: On the expenditure side, my right hon. Friend has already said that the additional military expenditure during this financial year will be between £35 million and £50 million. I know of no likely significant increase of civil expenditure.
As to the revenue, apart from the loss estimated at £6 million a month due to

petrol rationing, it is much too early to form any views. Indeed, I doubt the possibility of isolating the effect of events in the Middle East from the many other causes which from time to time affect the yield of taxation, direct or indirect.

Mr. Jay: Would the Financial Secretary agree that this £60 million or £70 million loss to the Budget is only one of the many blessings which have flowed from the Government's diplomatic triumph in the Middle East; and that, in addition, there is bound to be a considerable drop in revenue from Income Tax and Profits Tax, due to lower production and earnings?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already given to the House his forecast of the out-turn of the Budget above the line, and I have given a forecast of the out-turn below the line. As to the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I would say that fortunately this country is always one that, rather than count the £s carefully, does what it thinks right for the world.

Dollar Expenditure

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated increase in dollar expenditure resulting from our present economic difficulties.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I cannot at present add to the Answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 22nd November.

Mr. Bence: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication whether the Government are taking measures to control and limit unnecessary dollar imports, in view of the essential need for fuel oil to keep our economy going?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman and the House are aware of the implications of action of that sort. I think the hon. Gentleman had better await the statement which we have promised to the House.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer mean that the Government are now in such chaos that they neither know what they are doing nor the consequences of their action?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman may find this unfashionable doctrine, but the Government like to plan their action before taking it.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Anti-Inflationary Measures

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to offset the inflationary pressure resulting from the present economic difficulties.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The anti-inflationary measures which the Government have already taken are, I think, well known. We are watching the situation closely and shall not hesitate to take whatever measures may be necessary from time to time.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman giving consideration to the situation now developing in which we are getting the running down of production and commercial activities while at the same time we get rises in prices? Is not it a new experience to have rising prices with falling economic activity?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to exaggerrate either of those trends. He will know the figures of the Index of Production and the Index of Retail Prices which, as he knows, rose only 0·6 of a point in the last month.

Dividends and Incomes (Taxation)

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum of dividend on ordinary shares and the undistributed income after taxation for companies in table 29 of the Blue Book for the years 1946 and 1955; the increase in percentage; the increase in the taxation for these companies in that period; and the increase in income tax for the single man whose average earnings were £310 in 1946, and £570 in 1955, or 84 per cent. increase in earnings.

Mr. H. Brooke: With regard to companies the figures asked for in the first parts of the Question are given in the table referred to; the percentage increases between 1946 and 1955 in dividends on ordinary shares, before tax, and in their undistributed income after tax, were 83 and 148 respectively. The increase in tax

accruing on undistributed company income was £413 million. The amount of tax paid by a single man on an earned income of £310 at the rates applicable in 1946–47 was £46 6s. 3d., and the tax in similar circumstances on an earned income of £570 at 1955–56 rates was £73 17s. 6d.

Mr. McKay: Is it not correct that the combined results in increased percentage for share capital dividend and undistributed profits—[Interruption.]—is about 124 per cent.? [Interruption.] Has not the tax on profits been increased from £651 million to £877 million and is that not a 35 per cent. increase in taxation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for one question.

Mr. McKay: I just want a little opportunity to put my question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has had a good opportunity. Let us hear what the answer to the first part is, anyhow.

Mr. Brooke: I put a good deal of work into arriving at the answers to the several questions in the hon. Gentleman's original Question. I am not at all sure that I appreciate the full bearing of his supplementary questions but perhaps he will put them down, and I will get to work again.

Baddeley and Others v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Miss Herbison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long it will take to complete the examination of the effects of the decision on the case of Baddeley and Others v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Mr. H. Brooke: Examination of this complex problem is in progress and will be completed as soon as possible, but I regret that I cannot yet name the date.

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of charitable organisations, particularly those which are attempting to bring happiness to old people, are urgently awaiting the result of this examination? Can he not give a better indication than "as soon as possible", as finances are suffering greatly, and the old people are suffering as a result?

Mr. Brooke: I appreciate the force of what the hon. Lady has said. This decision was of course a difficult one for many of us. I am anxious that we shall get the position clarified as quickly as possible, but I cannot give the hon. Lady a definite date. I assure her that I recognise the urgency.

Petrol Stations (Building)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will impose financial controls to prevent the building of more petrol stations.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Treasury consent under the Control of Borrowing Order is normally needed if more than £10,000 is to be raised for this or any other purpose. The Capital Issues Committee has to be satisfied that any application for consent has a definite urgency under current requirements. I understand that in fact very few cases—and they had very special features—have been regarded as passing that test.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that petrol will be short for a very long time? Is it not irresponsible in those circumstances to allow precious labour and materials to be wasted in the building of more petrol stations when the existing ones have run dry?

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the pessimistic calculations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are correct, they would, of course, be reflected in a falling off of the applications made to the Capital Issues Committee in this context.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not the policy of the Government to have less petrol for more pumps? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether these controls have stopped the building of petrol stations? It is the impression of some of us that they are being built in considerable numbers. Will he recommend to his right hon. Friend that we ought to reimpose building controls?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman must have missed the last part of my Answer, which made it clear that very few of these cases had been granted consent.

Mr. E. Johnson: Will my hon. and learned Friend keep a very careful watch

on this matter? On the outskirts of Manchester a number of very large stations have been built, owned by large oil companies, and they are putting the smaller, old established garages out of business.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the procedures to which I am referring are those which have been in force under the directive of February of this year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Premium Savings Bonds

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he has made for distributing leaflets advertising the Premium Bonds.

Mr. H. Brooke: A leaflet explaining the main features of premium savings bonds was distributed through post offices, banks and trustee savings banks at the end of July, and the prospectus which sets out the terms of the new security in detail was distributed in the same way on 1st November. In addition, the National Savings Committee has sent out leaflets explaining the conditions of schemes for sale through savings groups to all interested groups.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great indignation has been caused to old-age pensioners in Reading because when they went to collect their pension books at the post office they found folded in each book a leaflet advertising Premium Bonds? Is he further aware that these people have scarcely enough money to feed themselves let alone to buy Premium Bonds? Will he, until such time as the old-age pension is raised, stop adding insult to injury in this way?

Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Member would like to send me further particulars I will pass them on to the Postmaster-General.

Purchase Tax (Refrigerators)

Mr. G. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the high cost of all types of refrigerators is making it difficult and often impossible for food merchants and retailers


to carry out the intentions of the Food and Drugs Acts and the Food Hygiene Regulations; and whether he will examine, in relation to the incidence of Purchase Tax, the cost to the nation of wasted food and ill-health and disease caused by inadequate refrigeration facilities in the food trades.

Mr. H. Brooke: Only the domestic types of refrigerator are liable to Purchase Tax. The larger types commonly used by food merchants and retailers are unaffected by the tax.

Mr. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not much use trying to develop refrigeration in this country unless consumers also have refrigeration, and that the difficulties are widespread?

Mr. Brooke: That is rather a different question. The hon. Gentleman's Question asks about food merchants and retailers.

Gift Parcels (Customs Concession)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Customs concessions are being granted to recipients in Great Britain of gift parcels as Christmas presents sent by troops serving overseas.

Mr. H. Brooke: There is a standing concession, published in standing orders overseas, which enables Service men to send home free of Customs charges gift parcels—not containing tobacco, scent or liquor—up to a value limit of £1 for each parcel sent to a separate person or at different times.

Mr. Bellenger: While recognising that concession, would it be possible, perhaps at Christmas time, to add to that somewhat, especially in the case of those troops who had been doing very good service in some trouble spots in more than one part of the world?

Mr. Brooke: I am anxious to help, but there is danger of abuse if we raise the £1 limit. A Service man can send as many separate parcels not exceeding £1 in value as he likes to one person, and if he has a number of girl friends he can send a parcel up to £1 in value to each of them.

Mr. Bence: Does the list of permitted parcels include tins of petrol?

Shipping Freight Rates

Mr. G. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his earlier appeals to industry and in order to maintain price stability, he will appeal to the shipping conference lines to exercise restraint in the matter of increasing shipping freight rates.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I feel sure that British members of the shipping conferences—which are, of course, international—are giving full weight to the considerations which the hon. Member has in mind. I am informed that the only significant increases recently made in the case of the conference lines serving the United Kingdom have been necessitated by the longer voyages arising from the Suez Canal developments.

Mr. Darling: Is this situation likely to continue? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the attitude of the Government will be that they will bring pressure to bear on any market of this kind where it looks as if unrestrained bargaining is in this case sending the shipping freight rates up beyond a reasonable figure?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that in view of the Answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman's original Question, that supplementary question is based upon an hypothesis to which I should not address myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE CLERICAL ASSOCIATION

Mr. Pitman: asked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) if he is aware that the action of the Civil Service Clerical Association in opposing the official policies of Her Majesty's Government constitutes a violation of the non-political status of civil servants; and what disciplinary action he proposes to take;
(2) whether he is aware that under Estacode the promotion prospects of all members of the Civil Service Clerical Association have been prejudiced by their action in opposing the official policies of Her Majesty's Government; whether he will bear in mind that large numbers of civil servants, being members of that union, have repeatedly dissociated themselves from the political action of the officers and executive of that union and that


the great majority dissociate themselves certainly from this recent excursion into political action; and if he will temper the discipline in all such innocent cases.

Mr. H. Brooke: I understand that a further meeting of the Association is being called to review the action taken on the occasion referred to by my hon. Friend. In the circumstances I suggest that it would be wise to reserve judgment pending the outcome of that meeting.

Mr. Pitman: While gratefully welcoming the news that there will be second and, we hope, better thoughts on this, may I ask the Minister if he will bear in mind that group alignments are notoriously psychologically much more dangerous than individual alignments? Is he aware that the Masterman Committee Report, in paragraphs 75 and 78, made it quite clear that the Committee had great doubts about the desirability of associations in the Civil Service going beyond the conditions of service into matters of national controversy? Is he also aware that members, particularly of the manipulative and minor grades, have great freedom of action as citizens to engage in controversy, and that is all the more reason why they should not engage in controversy as an association?

Mr. Brooke: I appreciate that most of the members belonging to the grades of this Association enjoy freedom to take part in political activities. I have refreshed my memory of the Masterman Report, and I would say to the House that in this case, as the batsman appears to be continuing his innings, I think that the commentator had better reserve himself until he knows the final score.

Mr. Redhead: Would the Financial Secretary agree that as the law stands at the moment Civil Service trade unions, including the Civil Service Clerical Association, are perfectly free to affiliate to any political party as they desire, and, as a collective organisation, to give expression to any political view?

Mr. Brooke: It is not a question of affiliating to political parties. What the Masterman Report said was that it had been the traditional attitude of successive Governments that political activities by staff associations were best left to be governed by the sense of responsibility and propriety of the associations themselves, and we look to the associations to

exercise that sense of responsibility and propriety.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's recently insane actions have put an unprecedented strain on the discretion of the Civil Service, and surely he does not deny the right of civil servants to hold freely their own personal opinions?

Mr. Brooke: I have always in this House and elsewhere defended the Civil Service against what seemed to me unjust charges, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we should do no good by pursuing this matter further at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Sausages (Meat Content)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the efforts by his Department to ensure that sausages contain a reasonable amount of meat.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) on 22nd November.

Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why it has taken so long to get a decision in this matter? Is he not aware that unscrupulous sausage manufacturers can purchase soya bean flour with chemical meat flavouring, and is it not obvious that the housewife really does need some protection?

Mr. Amory: I agreed previously that this is quite an important question. I do not think that there has been any avoidable delay. The Committee reported in June, and since then I have had to hold consultations with those concerned. They are at an end now, and I hope that a decision will be reached within two months.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in the days of the Labour Government sausages contained bread and faked cream?

Mr. Amory: I recall the circumstances with pain.

Foodstuffs (Colouring Substances)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions have been reached in respect of colouring substances in food; when regulations are to be introduced to give effect to the decision; and what restrictions are contemplated in the use of coal-tar dyes for painting kippers and the colouring of many items of food.

Mr. Amory: As I told the hon. Member on the 25th June, the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Food Standards Committee to permit the use in food of certain specified colours only, and I hope that it will be possible to introduce regulations early in the New Year. The only coal-tar dyes to be permitted will be those recommended by the Committee.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any radical change in the present treatment of kippers?

Mr. Amory: There will be no enforced change. I think that in relation to the use of colour in kippers there is an insistence that the colours used shall be on the permitted list.

Fish Shoals (Echo-Sounder)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the uses of the Kelvin Hughes Fishermen's Asdic, the new form of acoustic detection of fish shoals, in relation to the fishing and over-fishing of the North Sea; and what regulations he proposes to make regarding the use of Asdic.

Mr. Amory: This is in effect a horizontal echo-sounder designed to assist the use of drift nets and mid-water trawls. I understand the makers will not have the equipment on the market for several months. Scientific aids to the more efficient use of gear are to be encouraged and the conservation of the fish stocks is better sought in other ways.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this invention can be used to minimise or maximise the problem of over-fishing, to increase or reduce damage, and therefore it should be subject to

very careful regulations in order scientifically to tackle this very grave problem of over-fishing in the North Sea?

Mr. Amory: Yes. Of course it has not been proved commercially yet, but if it proves to be an efficient aid to catching fish, I think it is to be welcomed, because it will improve the productivity and efficiency of fishing and therefore tend to reduce costs. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member is not a Luddite, and would not wish to interfere with progress of that kind. Conservation of fish is a very important matter and, as the hon. and learned Member knows, that is being sought in other directions.

Food Prices and Supplies

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) in view of the Suez crisis, if he will take powers to prevent increases in the price of bread or other foodstuffs;
(2) if he will take powers to prevent the hoarding of those foodstuffs which will be in short supply as a result of the Suez crisis.

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now take steps to control and reduce the wholesale price of flour and the retail price of bread.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the foods we import will be affected in price as a consequence of the closing of the Suez Canal to shipping.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the recent increases in the price of tea, he will reintroduce price control.

Mr. Amory: There will be no shortage of food as a result of the closing of the Suez Canal, and there is no reason to expect that food prices in general will be seriously affected. I have no intention of taking special powers to control either supplies or prices.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that that is a very ambiguous reply? Can we have a definite assurance that food prices will not rise, and that increases will not be held over until the Christmas Recess, when the House is not sitting?

Mr. Amory: I think that if the hon. Lady studies my Answer she will find that it is quite a positive and definite statement of what I expect to happen.

Mr. Parkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the situation as regards the price of bread and flour reflects no credit on his Department and certainly was not one of the aims in front of him when he personally came into politics? Will he bear in mind that he is still the Minister of Food as well as the Minister of Agriculture? In view of the other burdens which the people of this country are asked to bear, will he accept this as a personal challenge to his ability and his courage?

Mr. Amory: I think I can assure the hon. Member that I accept my responsibilities as Minister of Food as very serious responsibilities indeed. I do not feel at all ashamed of the manner in which I have carried them out so far.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Would my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—Would my right hon. Friend—[interruption.] Keep quiet. Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that whatever happens he will not have to institute bread rationing, as was done by the Lobby fodder opposite?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Willey.

Mr. Willey: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Let us have the question of the hon. Member of Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and then we may have an answer.

Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as quite unjustifiable to put up the price of bread by withdrawing food subsidies? With regard to tea, surely he is aware that we have had previous experience of the consumer being exploited by the tea trade? Prices are already going up, and in these circumstances does he not accept the obligation to ensure that the housewife is not exploited again?

Mr. Amory: In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I have already said that in the present circumstances of this country it is quite impossible to justify the continuance of the general food subsidies for the benefit of

every single person, regardless of his or her means. In reply to the second part of the question, I do not think there is anything unreasonable in the present price of tea.

Mrs. Mann: I did not get an answer to my Question No. 23 regarding hoarding.

Mr. Amory: I know of no tendency to hoard food at present, and I can see no reason for it because I do not think there has ever been a time when food supplies have been more ample and more varied than at present.

Mrs. Mann: Will the Minister take this warning—that hoarding has already started, not because there is fear of shortage, but because there is fear of a steep increase in prices? Will he therefore try to introduce a standstill order for prices for goods coming round the Cape?

Mr. Amory: I have already stated that I can see no reason for any steep rises in food prices in general.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is not likely to be such a shortage of food as there was when hon. Members opposite gave up office five years ago, and when the meat ration for the consumer was 1s. 7d. per week?

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fact that scientific investigation by his Department has shown that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is preserved by cold and destroyed by heat, if he will test the practicability of requiring the flash heating of Argentine meat before it is chilled or frozen for shipment to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Amory: I am advised that although flash heating might destroy surface contamination, it would not destroy the virus of foot-and-mouth disease in an infected carcase where it may be present throughout the meat and the bone marrow.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend please not be deterred by that advice because the modern infra-red rays have a wonderfully penetrating effect, and it could do no possible harm to try this out on half a dozen carcases of infected meat?

Mr. Amory: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred amongst farm animals this year in England and Wales; what has been the source of infection; and how it was brought into the areas infected.

Mr. Amory: There have been 144 confirmed outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England and Wales this year of which 23 are classified as primaries. In many of the primary cases infection is attributed to direct or indirect contact with raw meat or bones from South American carcases distributed through normal trade channels. In the others the origin is obscure.

Mr. Dye: In view of the fact that the cause of these outbreaks is imported meat, will not the Minister make it an offence to import into this country meat infected with foot-and-mouth disease? Or will he arrange effective examinations at the port in order to prevent this meat from being imported?

Mr. Amory: Every possible precaution that we can think of is taken at present. We have veterinary officers of our own in South America who inspect the arrangements for inspection and themselves inspect many of the carcases by sampling, but however efficient the check by inspection is made, it cannot entirely eliminate the risk of the transfer of the disease.

Australian Meat

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the revised arrangements for the supply of Australian beef under the 15-year agreement with the Commonwealth.

Mr. Amory: It has been agreed that the quantity of meat that may be exported from Australia to countries other than the United Kingdom and the Colonies, which was increased from 10,000 to 15,000 tons for the year ended October last, will continue at 15,000 tons for the two following years. These arrangements are subject to review only in very exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Hard: Are the Australian meat producers quite happy about this arrangement? Will they continue to have the price assurances they have enjoyed hitherto?

Mr. Amory: The answer is "Yes".

National Food Survey (Report)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the dates between which the National Survey of Domestic Food Consumption during 1955 was taken; and when the result of the Survey is likely to be published.

Mr. Amory: In 1955 the National Food Survey was in operation throughout the year, except during the General Election campaign from 10th May to 31st May and the Christmas holiday. The National Food Survey Committee expects to complete its Report for 1955 in January next, and publication will follow as soon as printing can be completed.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that he can give an Answer to this Question on Thursday, whereas his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in what I think was an attempt to hoodwink the House, refused to give this information when we were discussing the Bread Order on Monday night? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it unfair to the House to produce in December, 1956, statistics covering the early part of 1955 in order to justify a Bread Order?

Mr. Amory: No, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion quoted figures from the 1955 National Food Survey. In the case of bread, of which the consumption does not vary much, those figures are relevant to the present day. As to the publication of the National Food Survey, over the last two or three years we have been gradually catching up the leeway. This survey, which cannot be completed until after the end of the year to which it applies of course, is published just as soon as it can be got out and the printing done.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his Joint Parliamentary Secretary about this in order to stop the objectionable practice of quoting from documents which have not yet been published? In view of the information being available to the Joint Parliamentary


Secretary, will the Minister say whether he can expedite publication, so that the House may have the information also?

Mr. Amory: To reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I think it best for the Minister to produce the latest relevant information at his disposal for the assistance of the House. In reply to the second part, I agree that this Food Survey comes out too late after the end of the year to which it applies. I repeat that in the last two or three years we have been gradually catching up, but I shall not be satisfied until it is published within six months of the end of the year to which it applies.

Fowl Pest, Norfolk

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many outbreaks of fowl pest have occurred in Norfolk so far this year; how many birds and eggs have been destroyed: and his estimate of the cost in dealing with these outbreaks and the amount of compensation to be paid.

Mr. Amory: Up to 27th November there have been 26 outbreaks of fowl pest this year in Norfolk, involving the slaughter of 106,575 birds and the destruction of 16,542 hatching eggs. Compensation amounts to about £134,000.

Mr. Dye: Is the Minister aware that these recent outbreaks of fowl pest have been of such a mild character that the owners and those looking after the birds have not noticed it, and that it has been detected only by blood tests and laboratory examinations? Is it not quite a different disease from that with which we were dealing a few years ago?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member may have more information about this than I have, but I understand that the serious outbreaks recently in Norfolk have been among ducks, and I am advised that in ducks the disease is extremely difficult to diagnose. That is why it is serious, because it can be conveyed by ducks just as easily as by poultry.

Fat Cattle (Guarantee Payment)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the subsidy payable, per live hundredweight, for fat cattle for the latest available week;

and how it compares with the estimate published on 25th October.

Mr. Amory: For the week ended 25th November the total rate of guarantee payment was 44s. 6d. per live cwt. This was made up of the rolling average guarantee of 29s. and the additional payment of 8s., precisely as estimated on 25th October, plus a stabilising adjustment of 7s. 6d. paid in accordance with the original guarantee arrangements.

Mr. Dye: Is not that figure very different from the October estimate? Is not the total subsidy very much larger, and is not that entirely due to the marketing arrangements and not the deficiency payments?

Mr. Amory: The only difference between the figures I have just quoted and the estimate announced on 25th October is the addition of the stabilising adjustment. This is the sum required at the time to bring the total payment up to 128s., excluding the supplementary payment of 8s.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not one reason for the increased Government expenditure on this account the heavier importation of foreign beef?

Mr. Amory: That may be one of the reasons for the level of the market, but it is also one of the reasons we have been able to return to the pre-war level of beef consumption. There is no evidence that the present supply of beef is in excess of what the nation wants.

Imported Dried Egg

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of the imported dried egg which was declared unfit for human consumption between January and October was sold for animal food; and in what districts it was sold.

Mr. Amory: None, Sir, so far as I am aware.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister's inspectors take care to see that dried eggs condemned as unfit for human consumption are not sold to be fed to animals?

Mr. Amory: My veterinary officers take the greatest care they can to see that that does not happen. I want to


make it quite clear that my Department has sold no stocks of the eggs in question during the past eighteen months.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

British Motor Corporation (Strike Settlement)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Labour how many reports of victimisation arising from the British Motor Corporation strike settlement he has received from employers and unions, respectively; and what action he proposes to take.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): My Department was informed of only one case in which difficulty occurred. My intervention was not requested, and no action on my part was called for.

Mr. Remnant: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that answer that the considerable number of cases reported in the Press were either incorrect or have been put right since?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir; there were certain Press reports of disciplinary action taken by unions against individual members, but the Answer which I have given is a factual one in accordance with the Question. If one takes into account the size and bitterness of this dispute, I think it is remarkable how peaceful the aftermath of it has been.

Factory Inspectorate

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour when the new pay structure of the Factory Inspectorate is to come into being; and whether the maximum salary for district inspectors will be at the same level as that which appertains in the works group.

Mr. Iain Macleod: New scales of pay for the Factory Inspectorate came into force on 31st October last, with effect from 1st April last.
The answer to the last part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister agree that if the maximum salary scale for the district inspectors is not as high as that which is paid for the works group, we are not likely, as time goes by, to have these key posts filled by men who are

qualified in science and engineering, because such men will not enter the service in the first place?

Mr. Macleod: In his Question, the hon. Member is comparing the top range of the senior grade of the works group with the salaries of the district inspectorate, and of course, as he knows, the work of the general inspectorate is not exclusively of a professional character.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an estimate of the annual increase of salary required for the Factory Inspectorate which would attract approximately 10 recruits each year who are qualified in science or engineering.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is not possible to give any such estimate.

Dr. Stross: Will the Minister agree that if the entry grades had an increase of approximately £100 a year, they would then easily compete with other Departments for recruits of the type mentioned in the Question, and that as the years went by we should at least get back to the standard which we had in 1938, when two-thirds of the men were so qualified?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think it is possible to be as precise as the hon. Member seeks to be. Even on the pre-Priestley scales, from a continuing competition in August, 1955, we have had seven graduates with qualifications in science and engineering. It may well be that with the new scales we shall do a little better.

Mr. Lee: Can the Minister tell us whether there has been any increase in the numbers entering the Inspectorate since the announcement of the new scales?

Mr. Macleod: No. It is too early to say that, but I will keep the hon. Member informed.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give consideration to establishing a system of merit awards for factory inspectors, similar to the awards available to medical consult ants.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. I see no reason for treating the Factory Inspectorate differently from other parts of the Civil Service in this respect.

Dr. Stross: In the situation which now rests on the Minister, men who are fully qualified and who have to assume very great responsibility have salary scales lower than those of men doing similar work with similar types of responsibility. In those circumstances, does not the Minister think that this incentive might have been most helpful? Will he not give it further consideration?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the system of merit awards is an extremely interesting departure, and it may be that there are other places in the social services where it would be appropriate, but I cannot see that it would be appropriate for any part of the Civil Service, where the ordinary reward for merit is promotion.

Civil Service (Temporary Appointments)

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour (1) to what extent when persons are appointed through his Department to temporary appointments in Government Departments there is any operation of a screening character; whether the individuals are informed when they are interviewed for appointment that they will be screened; and if they are informed in any case in which they are not appointed because of the result of the screening;
(2) how many candidates for temporary appointment in the Civil Service have been screened; and how many of them have failed to be appointed because of the screening.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Character references are sought in the normal way by my Department for applicants for non-industrial temporary Government service. This is known beforehand to the candidate from the application form he completes, but it is not the practice to inform an unsuccessful candidate of the reason why he was not appointed. No statistics are kept of applications or rejections.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the Minister say whether or not these so-called character investigations are the kind of investigations envisaged in the White Paper on security, introduced in March this year, and are any tests also made of a candidate's political opinions?

Mr. Macleod: The investigation is essentially a character one, and not a security screening, if one can put it like that. So far as the posts are concerned, there are obviously many—in the Post Office, for example—where large numbers of people have to be taken on and large sums of money may be involved, and a fairly detailed character investigation has, therefore, to take place. It is not in any way, normally, related to a man's political opinions.

Oil Supplies

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will undertake an inquiry into the effects of the oil economies proposed by Her Majesty's Government upon employment levels in our principal industries.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The further restrictions announced on 20th November have been designed to cause the minimum disturbance to production and employment. I am keeping a close and continuing watch on their operation.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that a mere flat-rate reduction will not leave certain key industries in a most aggravated situation, and that if their oil supplies once drop below the minimum necessary to conduct the work, it will mean pretty heavy unemployment in those industries that depend upon the products of the key industry?

Mr. Macleod: It is precisely for that and other reasons, of course, that I am keeping, and will continue to keep, the very closest watch. I am already getting most detailed reports from our regional offices all over the country, so that I can keep my finger as close as possible on the pulse of what is happening.

Mr. Allaun: How is it possible for the Government to avoid serious unemployment when they have decided to cut the supply of diesel oil to industrial firms by 20 per cent. on 1st January?

Mr. Macleod: The N.P.A.C.I. has said that what has been announced so far should not have a serious effect. Of course it is true that one cannot prophesy what will happen if, for example, the Suez Canal remains blocked for a long period of time, and more stringent measures have to be put into operation.

Coal Industry (Recruitment)

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the increased demands upon the coal industry, what special efforts he proposes to make to stimulate recruitment to the industry.

Mr. Iain Macleod: My local offices throughout the country give constant attention to the recruitment of suitable men for employment in the coal mines. In addition, all who register for National Service are reminded that call-up is deferred for men satisfactorily employed underground in coal mines.

Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that it is not sufficient merely to keep the labour exchanges in the coal areas informed of this; and that one of the problems we now face, and about which the miner feels pretty bitter, is that it is deemed to be merely the job of the miner and his family to keep on supplying Britain with her miners? Will he agree that it is now a national problem, and that people outside the mining areas must really play their part in enabling us to get our coal?

Mr. Macleod: Of course it is a national problem, and it is for that reason that the National Coal Board has been intensifying its programmes of recruitment and publicity, and in every possible way we shall be glad to help.

Disposition
Quarter ended 29th September, 1956
Six weeks ended 10th November, 1956
Week ended 17th November, 1956


Average numbers of men:







Proving attendance
…
…
6,144
9,786
9,852


On annual holiday
…
…
6,500
782
375


Employed
…
…
59,387
60,510
60,300


Sick and otherwise absent
…
…
6,352
6,674
6,755


On workers registers
…
…
78,383
77,752
77,282

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister (1) what arrangements have been made for the answering of Questions relating to the duties of the Paymaster-General;
(2) the duties to be performed by the Paymaster-General.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — Dock Workers

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether unemployment in the docking industry has recently increased or decreased; and whether he will give the latest available figures.

Mr. Iain Macleod: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statistical statement supplied to me by the National Dock Labour Board.

Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether, in fact, there is an increase in unemployment and part-time working in the docking industry? If that is so, would he not agree that it does, indeed, form a barometer as to what is likely to happen in other of our industries? Therefore, would he keep the House very closely informed on these facts?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. The whole position fluctuates from day to day, and although there has been a substantial increase in those proving attendance, there are many factors in the statement to be circulated, such as men coming back from holiday, and those who are off sick, which the hon. Gentleman will also have to take into account in getting a true picture.

Following is the statement:

The Paymaster-General's duties include those laid upon him by Statute. My right hon. and learned Friend will also be able to undertake, as a senior Cabinet Minister, such special tasks as may be entrusted to him from time to time.

The statutory duties of the Paymaster-General do not normally involve so many Parliamentary Questions as to make any special arrangements necessary.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us when the Paymaster-General


is to answer Questions in this House? Could he also say whether one of the Paymaster-General's duties is to explain the Government's policy in the Middle East, and what he has done to deserve such a punishment?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; he has already discharged that task with conspicuous skill and ability.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (LORD PRIVY SEAL'S SPEECH)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal at Cambridge on Friday, 23rd November, relating to the situation in Egypt and its outcome, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The hon. Gentleman may be assured that my right hon. Friend would be satisfied that his right hon. Friend's speech accorded with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lewis: Am I, therefore, to take it that the prosperity Butler of the past is now the austerity Butler of the future? And may I ask what are the austerity measures that the Lord Privy Seal prophesied that the Government were to introduce? Can we have those austerity measures announced in the House, when the House is sitting, rather than when the House goes into Recess during Christmas?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I have had a certain amount to do both with prosperity and austerity, and in either case the hon. Gentleman may be assured that the Government will announce what they are to do. Petrol rationing, one of the measures, has already been announced.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the Lord Privy Seal agree, on reflection, that when, according to the report of this speech, he said,
We have a united party and a united Government"—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gaitskell: —followed by the sentence,
What is at stake is whether the Western alliance, the American Government and the Commonwealth will come in behind us …

those sentences were more likely to lead to ridicule than to any effective solution of the problem?

Mr. Butler: The resounding cheers from behind me—[Interruption.]—indicate the extent of the unity and determination of both Her Majesty's Government and the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. Furthermore, the objectives of all of us are to give strength to the Atlantic alliance.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CIPHERS AND CODES

Mr. Wigg: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to re-establish the integrity of ciphers and codes used by the Foreign Office and Armed Forces which have recently been broken, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Dudley.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
It would be contrary to the public interest to give any information about Government cipher policy and procedures. But I can say that we have no evidence at present to confirm the information given by the hon. Member of any insecurity in confidential code or cipher systems in use by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member may be assured that, whenever there is even suspicion that such a system may have been compromised, immediate remedial measures are taken.

Mr. Wigg: Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that if electronic equipment has been evolved which breaks all codes, and he has to rely on telling the truth, he will be at a considerable disadvantage?

Mr. Butler: All I can say is that I have examined the statement made by the hon. Member, and if he would care to see me and give me further information, I should be only too glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — "AMILCAR"

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister when the joint organisation named "Amilcar", in which the United Kingdom was a participant, was set up.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Her Majesty's Government know of no organisation named "Amilcar".

Mr. Rankin: Is the Lord Privy Seal not aware that it has been widely said that this organisation was set up to fashion a predetermined attack on Egypt, and will he say categorically that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had no part in this organisation at any stage whatsoever?

Mr. Butler: I have ascertained that this name is referred to in the paper Time of 12th November as being an organisation of the type referred to by the hon. Member. That information is not correct. The word "Hamilcar" was last used as a code word in 1942–46, and, going back into history, the last time that I can find it used is in 247 B.C. For the purpose of scholarship, I would refer the hon. Member to the works of Polybius and of Cornelius Nepos.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Transport (Railway Finances) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Import Duties (No. 14) Order relating to Silica Refractory Bricks.
TUESDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Committee stage of the Homicide Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH DECEMBER and THURSDAY, 6TH DECEMBER—A debate will take place on the Situation in the Middle East.
FRIDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the nature of the debate on Wednesday and Thursday of next week? Is it the Government's intention, for example, that the House should debate any of the Motions on the

Order Paper relating to the Middle East, especially the one signed by 130 of the hon. Members opposite—
[That this House congratulates the Foreign Secretary on his efforts to secure international control of the Suez Canal, and deplores both the Resolution of the General Assembly calling for immediate and unconditional withdrawal of British and French troops from Egypt, and the attitude of the United States of America which is gravely endangering the Atlantic alliance.]—
or have the Government in mind a Motion of their own, or are they waiting for us to table one?

Mr. Butler: We had better await the statement to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and after that we can have discussions on the nature of the debate. I think it is unlikely to take place on one of the Motions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I think that it is likely to take place on one of the two other alternatives which he posed.

Mr. Pitman: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he will find time for a quite different kind of Motion which is on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), which is both interesting and constructive and differs completely from all the other Motions?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions as soon as possible in the United Nations, so that the United Nations should acquire, by purchase or on a long lease or by other means, the sovereignty of the Sinai peninsula, with control over the islands of Tiran and Sanafir in the Gulf of Aqaba, as an assembly point and first base for a permanent United Nations World Constabulary, and so that the Charter may be suitably revised for setting up an Authority of the United Nations for carrying out the responsibilities and exercising the powers relative to such an acquisition.]

Mr. Butler: I cannot guarantee that we can find time for all these Motions, although I realise that the Motion referred to by my hon. Friend is actuated by the highest ideals.

Mr. T. Fraser: Has the Lord Privy Seal yet taken a decision on the proposal


that the Scottish Clauses of the Rent Bill should go to the Scottish Standing Committee?

Mr. Butler: I understand that the Opposition were informed through the usual channels that the Government did not consider it possible that this Bill could be split in the way desired by the hon. Member. I hope, therefore, that the information has reached him, as we attempted to make it available to the Opposition.

Mr. S. Silverman: On Tuesday's business, is the Leader of the House aware that by the time it next sits the Committee will have reached Part II of the Homicide Bill and that in respect of that part of the Bill, so far as this side of the House is concerned, there is a free vote?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he undertook at an earlier stage that the interests of those of us who were primarily interested in Part II of the Bill would be considered and that there would be consultations with us from time to time?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that to many of us Tuesday of next week is a very inconvenient day for the Committee stage? As there has been no such consultation as he promised, would he undertake to explore, through the usual channels, the possibility of exchanging Monday's and Tuesday's business so as to enable those of us who have given some part of our lives to this issue to be able to be present when it is next discussed?

Mr. Butler: I was not aware that Tuesday was inconvenient to the hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends. I must say that when it is a case of Government business there is no absolute duty upon me to indulge in consultations with other than the Opposition, but it is my duty, as Leader of the House, to pay attention to any representations that are made to me. I think it will be very difficult now to change this business, but if the hon. Member would like to see me and explain his difficulties I shall, of course, be glad to see him.

Mr. N. Pannell: Could my right hon. Friend say when time will be provided for the Second Reading of the Ghana Independence Bill?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give an actual date. On a previous occasion I was

reproved for trying to forecast the business a week ahead, in relation partly to the 14-day rule. I cannot give an undertaking about a day, but we wish to bring this Bill forward as soon as possible.

Mr. Daines: May I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that on the main debate on Suez we shall have a clear statement of the Government's case at the beginning of the debate and not statements reserved for the end of the debate so that they are not freely debatable, such as we had on the last occasion when the President of the Board of Trade was involved?

Mr. Butler: I think that we had better wait for the Foreign Secretary's statement and for other developments. I feel sure that there will be ample material before the House to enable hon. Members to ascertain the line to be taken by the Government.

Mr. Bevan: That is not quite good enough, is it? We are to have two days' debate. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable that the Government's case should be fully outlined at the beginning if we are to have an effective debate afterwards?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman will await the Foreign Secretary's statement, he will see that things will work out in such a way that ample material will be available to indicate the line of the Government well before the debate.

Mr. D. Jones: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends? Will he now take the opportunity to enable the Government at least to implement the firm promise of the Prime Minister on domestic matters, which he made as far back as 9th June, 1955?
[That this House regrets that despite the promise given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 9th June, 1955, to introduce legislation to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the workers on or about the railways, no reference is made in the Gracious Speech to implementing this undertaking.]

Mr. Butler: I believe that that Motion relates to the Gowers Report. I will certainly look into that and give a reply to the hon. Member.

EGYPT (SITUATION)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about my recent visit to New York and the discussions there with regard to the situation in Egypt.
My statement can only be of an interim character. There are important questions to be decided and they must be discussed with our French allies before decisions can be announced. M. Pineau is coming to London tomorrow afternoon and I propose to make a further statement next Monday.
I found the general atmosphere in the United Nations considerably improved, and a wider understanding of our position in certain sections of American opinion. The debate on the Afro-Asian Resolution during Friday and Saturday of last week indicated the change in the atmosphere in the United Nations.
I pointed out that we could not accept that Resolution, because it implied a measure of censure which we could not accept and because it demanded that we should withdraw forthwith. Also, the Resolution was unrealistic, as it made no reference to an international force. I indicated our desire to co-operate with the United Nations in these matters and I hoped for a Resolution which we could accept.
After I expressed these views, the representative of Belgium, M. Spaak, put forward an amendment to the Afro-Asian Resolution calling upon us to
expedite the application of the Resolutions of the 2nd and 7th of November
—which, among other things, urged us to withdraw—
in the spirit in which they were adopted, particularly with regard to the functions vested in the United Nations Forces.
I stated that if that amendment was accepted the United Kingdom would be able to vote for the Resolution. That also was the position of France. On the Belgian amendment the vote was 23 in favour, 37 against, and 18 abstentions, including the United States of America. In other words, the majority of the Assembly either voted with us or

abstained. That constituted a considerable shift of opinion.
The original Resolution was then put to a vote and carried by a very large majority. I should, however, point out that the vote on this Resolution was affected, in my view, by the fact that Mr. Cabot Lodge, representing the United States, had stated that he interpreted the word "forthwith" to mean "a phased operation".
We have repeatedly indicated our willingness to withdraw our forces from Egypt when an international Force was effectively constituted and competent to carry out its functions. The House will recall the suggestion originally made by the Prime Minister on 1st November with regard to the United Nations undertaking the physical task of keeping the peace in the area.
From that date the conception of an international Force rapidly gained support. The United Nations Force has now been constituted and is growing in numbers, and I pay tribute to the speed with which the Secretary-General and his advisers have acted. There are already about 1,400 men in Egypt. By 1st December there will be about 2,700. Within about 14 days, the Force should number 4,100, apart from some air personnel, approximately 300 in number, stationed at Naples. The 4,100 will be in Egypt. Among these 4,400 will be about 700 Canadian troops.
Within a fortnight there should be an organised military force, with a headquarters and staff, under the command of General Burns, with two armoured car companies and the necessary supporting units including medical, engineer, transport, signals, supply, workshop, provost and post units and other army services elements. The provisional target of the Secretary-General is to increase that Force to two combat brigades with appropriate administrative backing, including air transport.
I mention these facts to the House because, obviously, the build-up of this Force must have an important relationship to a phased withdrawal of our own and the French troops. There are, however, other important matters to be considered, such as the speedy clearance of the Canal, and the negotiation of a final settlement with regard to the future operation of the Canal.
Decisions upon these matters must be discussed with our French allies, and I also await certain clarifications with regard to the carrying out of the Resolution passed last Saturday by the General Assembly. This Resolution authorised the Secretary-General to proceed with arrangements for clearance as a United Nations operation. I shall be able to deal with those aspects of the matter next Monday.
Grave anxiety has been caused in this country as to the position of British subjects in Egypt. The House will recall the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 26th November. As soon as I received the report from the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I made known to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the very serious view which Her Majesty's Government took of it, and of the consequences which would inevitably follow if the expulsions were put into effect.
On 27th November I sent a letter to the Secretary-General, which, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, pointing out the hardship that would be caused to thousands of British subjects, many of them poor people, who were to be forced to leave the country where they had lived many years, without being permitted to take sufficient money with them to start a new life elsewhere.
The present position is not entirely clear, but it seems that no general expulsion order was made. The Egyptian Government did, however, issue a very large number of individual expulsion orders against British and French subjects. In addition, several hundred British subjects remain interned. The Swiss Minister in Cairo, to whose work I should like to pay a warm tribute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—is doing everything he can both to improve the position of British subjects in Egypt and to clarify the Egyptian Government's intentions. We await his further reports.
Bearing in mind what I have said earlier, I hope that the House will be willing to await my further statement on Monday.

Mr. Bevan: May I be allowed to associate right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House with the protests

against the treatment of British and French subjects in Egypt? We regard it as entirely repugnant to civilised principles that innocent people should be the victims of State policy. Apart from any question of who is responsible for the situation in Egypt, innocent people ought not to be victimised because of the policies of their Governments.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to notice once more the sinister juxtaposition of three points in his statement: first, the phased withdrawal of our troops; secondly, clearance of the Canal; and, thirdly, the future of the Canal? Is it not a fact that our insistence all the while upon having a clear declaration from Egypt about the future of the Canal is one of the chief causes of differences between ourselves and the United States?
Is it not a fact that it is because it is assumed that we are trying to bring about a settlement of the question of the future of the Canal by force and not by negotiation that the difficulties have arisen? Is it not a fact that what the Government are doing all the while is attempting to associate the build-up of the United Nations Force in Egypt and the phased withdrawal of our own troops from Egypt with exacting from Egypt a declaration about the future of the Canal?
Is not this the chief stumbling block between ourselves and the United Nations and the United States? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he makes his statement on Monday, bear in mind that the removal of that stumbling block is, in our opinion, the most important objective before the Government today?

Mr. Lloyd: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's association of the Opposition with what was said about the position of British subjects.
We have never said that we sought to impose a settlement of the future of the Canal by force. If right hon. Gentlemen will read what was said in the earlier debates, they will see that that position was made perfectly clear. Nevertheless, I do not think that it is unreasonable that we should receive some indication about the future course of negotiations on that matter.
The clearance of the Canal is a practical matter. All we want to see is that


the United Nations gets on with that job as quickly as possible, with all the resources available.

Mr. Bevan: Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak with a twisted tongue in this matter? He says that he wants some assurance about future negotiations about the Canal, but is it not a fact that negotiations were in train before this action was taken? Is it not a fact that the President of the United States has stated that the allies wished to exercise force to settle this matter? Is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary's own statement once more gives rise to the suspicion that we are not ourselves prepared to obey the United Nations Resolution unless we have some assurances about the future of the Canal? Is not that the chief stumbling block in the way of a settlement? Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not be as clear with the United States as he thinks he is with the House of Commons?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter which must be discussed with out French allies, and with which I shall deal next Monday. I do not believe this is a matter which is holding up further developments. I think that the immediate practical point is the build-up of the international force. I have indicated the time-table for that, and I have drawn attention to the importance of the practical matter of the clearance of the Canal.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to say anything further today about a formal offer by himself and M. Pineau of Anglo-French salvage units, with their personnel, to the United Nations?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, that has been made quite specifically. It was made some time ago. We have offered that our resources should be available to the United Nations for this task.

Mr. Grimond: As I understand, we were willing to accept the Belgian amendment, which certainly would have involved us in leaving Port Said before the future of the Canal was settled. May we take it, therefore, that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that we do not need to keep troops in Port Said until a final settlement is made about the future of the Canal?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a question which I should like to consider. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory as to the terms of the Belgian amendment, that referred to the application of the Resolutions
in the spirit in which they were adopted, particularly with regard to the functions vested in the United Nations forces.
If he further refreshes his memory by looking at the Resolution of 2nd November, he will see that there is a very important point in that about the securing of free transit.

Mr. Pitman: May I raise a point of clarification and interpretation of the words used by the United Nations? This group of forces is supposed to be a combat group, yet the United Nations has made it quite clear that their presence there is by invitation and concurrence of the sovereign Power—Egypt—so that if they will not lay down their arms and surrender to Egypt, they will at least clear out at the request of Egypt. If that is so, how can they possibly be called a combat force? Whom are they to combat?

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend will remember, these forces are to be armed. It is not, I think, envisaged that they will engage in major operations. Perhaps the word "combat", which is not mine—it was the word of the Secretary-General—is one which could have been improved upon. I think it is understood that the forces will remain there until their functions have been discharged.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempting so to interpret the Resolution of the United Nations as to make it assume that one of the functions of the force there is to secure the future of the Canal before we get out of Port Said? That is the inference of his reply to the Leader of the Liberal Party. Is it not a fact that there has always been ambiguity about what size the United Nations Force should be before we ourselves, in the view of the Government, should clear out, and that that has no relation whatsoever to the future of the Canal, which ought to be the subject of unfettered negotiation, not imposed by force?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that the future régime of the Canal must be a matter for negotiation, subject to the fact that in the


Resolution of 2nd November there is a very important operative paragraph. The functions of the international force are declared to be to assist in creating conditions—I am not using the actual words—in which the Resolutions of 2nd, 5th and 7th November will be carried out. I think that it is better that the matter should rest there.

Mr. P. Williams: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the history of this matter is rather longer than the period since the end of October this year? Will he not agree that whatever Resolutions and recommendations may have been passed by the United Nations, there is only one transgressor of international law, and that is the Government which has prevented the freedom of navigation of the Canal?

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend knows, we regard the action of 26th July as a breach of international law.

Mr. Paget: Is it not clear that whatever form this international force takes, it can only stay on Egyptian territory until the Egyptians ask it to leave? That being so, what is it to be effective for?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear a previous answer I made. This force is to remain on Egyptian soil until its functions are fulfilled.

Mr. Patrick Maitlaod: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it is the case that Dr. Fawzi, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, on Monday repudiated the functions of this force when he said that it was not in Egypt
to clear the Canal
or
to resolve any questions or settle any problems"?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not have the precise words of the Egyptian Foreign Minister in mind, but it is quite clear that it is not a function of this force to clear the Canal. That is a separate, independent United Nations operation, which, I believe, will be prosecuted with the utmost vigour.

Mr. J. Hynd: Will the Minister make it clear, if he really means this, that he intends that the British troops shall

remain in the Canal area until the United Nations and Egypt have accepted our original proposals for the internationalisation of the Canal? Is he not aware that it is now clear to the whole world that the whole of this operation has been due to the Government's determination to force the acceptance of these proposals, and that if he continues with this attempt to blackmail the United Nations by keeping the British troops there he will succeed only in destroying all that is left of British prestige in the world?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that he had better await my further statement on Monday.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have another statement on Monday. Mr. Butler.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order. I have been continually on my feet, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but so were other hon. Members on the hon. Gentleman's side. The hon. Member has already made two speeches on the situation, which other hon. Members have not done. I am sorry if my discretion in this matter does not please him, but I cannot please everybody. I do my best.

Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order. With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, we have waited a long time for this statement. The Foreign Secretary has been away and has come back, and I submit that we should be allowed to put a few more questions to him. The matter is of very great importance. To go away now and not have anything more on it for the weekend seems to me quite wrong.

Mr. Speaker: I saw no hon. Member rise from the Opposition Front Bench, and very few on the other side. To carry on a debate by question and answer is very difficult. I take into account what the hon. Member said, but this matter has had a long run. It has had twenty minutes' run.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order. The statement itself took some time and surely, Mr. Speaker, when the


right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we must await next week to hear the decisions of the Government, we are entitled by question and answer today to try to influence what those decisions may be. In this respect, we might have taken another course this evening, but out of courtesy to the Government we have not—[Interruption.] Certainly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced that he is to meet the French Foreign Minister and we think that in the circumstances he is perfectly entitled to do so—[Interruption.]—if the House would allow me to finish my sentence and not be so schoolboyish—before the Government make their final decision to the House.
If we are to have those final decisions given to the House, surely we are entitled now to try to elicit something of what is in the Government's mind before that is done. Hon. Members really must remember —[HON. MEMBERS: Is this a point of order?"] I am on the point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] There were right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who were wishing to put further questions and hon. Members behind and opposite who were wishing to do so, and in my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, because of the very great importance of the matter, we ought to be allowed to ask further questions.

Sir I. Fraser: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the event of your allowing further questions, will you bear in mind that they could be and might be put not only by right hon. Members on both Front Benches but also by hon. Members on the back benches, on both sides of the House? May I ask, further, whether this is really a departure from the usual and long-established custom of the House that questions arising out of a statement are strictly limited when there is no Motion before the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks me several questions. The truth is, of course, that there is no Question before the House at this moment and that, therefore, there cannot be a debate. The House should have a Question before it before it indulges in debate. I allowed a number of questions, some of which were undoubtedly of an elucidatory

description and very proper ones, but I could see that the matter was developing into debate, with references to older occurences, all of which would be far more happily gone into and more comfortably gone into when we have our two-day debate next week.
If my decision displeases the House I can only regret it. I have come to it honestly as my idea of the right thing for the House to do. That is what I am here for. I am sorry that the House should disagree with me in the matter, but I have done the best I can.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—a serious point of order.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order? What is it?

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary has made a statement of some length in which he has referred to a large number of aspects of his visit to the United States. Almost all the questions following the statement have been concerned with one single issue which is involved in the problem. There has been no opportunity whatever of dealing with a number of other aspects on which this House deserves information, and which are quite separate.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I have no idea what hon. Members will say when I call them to ask questions. I cannot be held responsible if they do not ask the questions which the hon. Member thinks they should ask. That is not a matter for me—

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do think that the time has come when we are passing beyond legitimate questions on a statement, when there is no Question before the House. We could prolong these questions indefinitely and really get no farther forward. Let us have a Question before the House which the House can debate. Then we shall know where we are.

Following is the text of the letter from the Foreign Secretary to the Secretary-General of the United Nations:

I have the honour to draw your attention to the enclosed statement by Her Majesty's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons on 26th November regarding the treatment of British subjects in Egypt.

Thousands of British subjects have received orders from the security police, under instructions from the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior, to leave Egypt within a few days. In many cases, British subjects have been obliged to sign a declaration in Arabic (without ever, knowing its contents) confirming that they are leaving of their own free will, undertaking not to return to Egypt and renouncing any claim to damages. The Swiss Minister in Cairo, who is looking after British interests in Egypt, has vigorously protested to the Egyptian Government against what he has described as "a barbarous measure".

Several thousands of these British subjects are poor people. Some six thousand are of Maltese origin. They are being forced to leave a country where they have lived many years without being permitted to take sufficient money with them to start a new life elsewhere. Despite the efforts of the Swiss Legation, these people are not being permitted to make provision for the deserted homes and personal property they will be leaving behind. No facilities are being given them for the appointment of legal representatives.

The indiscriminate character of these expulsion orders is reminiscent of the barbarous methods of mass deportations at short notice which have been practised in other countries. This operation is being carried out with indiscriminate and brutal haste against people who have given service to Egypt and have spent their lives in that country.

I have the honour to request that this communication be brought to the attention of all the members of the United Nations.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (SELECT COMMITTEE)

4.3 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer.
This Motion represents a further approach to a problem which has been exercising the House for some time. It is entirely proper that the Government and Parliament should proceed step by step in a matter of this kind. Parliament's relations with the nationalised industries will develop as an evolutionary process, and so we must not be impatient if it takes a little time to find the right answer to this question. The problem is to decide by what means Members may best inform themselves about the activities of the nationalised industries without taking upon themselves responsibilities which properly belong to Ministers of the Crown or encroaching on the independence of enterprises which are and must remain fundamentally commercial in character.
This problem was reviewed in the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries which was appointed in November, 1952, under the Chairmanship of the present Lord Clitheroe and which reported in July, 1953. The Select Committee recommended by that Report was first appointed on 16th March, 1955, and reconstituted after the General Election on 7th July, 1955. On 14th November of that year the Committee reported that its terms of reference left it
insufficient scope to make inquiries or to obtain further information regarding the Nationalised Industries which would be of any real use to the House.
Since then we have been considering very carefully what course we ought to follow, what course we ought to recommend to hon. Members. We have decided, after considering various possible methods of procedure, that a new Select Committee should be appointed for the purpose and a fresh attempt made


to grapple with what is admitted by everybody to be a difficult and delicate operation. We should have introduced this Motion last Session had there been time. The House will remember that we had a very overloaded programme, and there was not time, and so we had to wait for the new Session.
Why then do we recommend in the light of experience of what has gone before the appointment of yet another Select Committee? There are three good reasons for this. First, it was the unanimous recommendation of the Clitheroe Committee that a Select Committee
is the only practical means of performing these functions
that is, proper liaison between Parliament and the nationalised industries.
The second reason why we have reverted to the idea of a Select Committee is that it is our traditional procedure in this House and it is a procedure which Parliament understands and knows how to work. It has the additional advantage that it is relatively free from party bias.
The third advantage of this Select Committee procedure is that it is a procedure which is complementary to and not intended to be a substitute for Parliament's other opportunities for discussing the nationalised industries, and which everyone recognises as the easiest and straightest way of considering them.
The trouble is that the pressure of business on the Floor of the House makes it increasingly difficult for hon. Members to give adequate attention to the considerable body of facts and figures about the nationalised industries which is in various forms available just now. Therefore, there seems to be both need and room in addition for a more continuing and sustained opportunity for hon. Members to acquaint themselves with the affairs of these nationalised industries. Therefore, we would hope that a new Select Committee set up for this purpose would gradually create on both sides of the House a body of informed opinion about these industries which, while not refraining from criticism where criticism was due, would at the same time approach this problem in a helpful and constructive spirit.
Of course, such a Select Committee would produce reports of its own from time to time, and, as time permitted, we

would try to see that opportunity was provided for giving an occasion for debating its reports. As a result the affairs of these nationalised industries would be brought back into the main stream of Parliamentary discussion, with this added advantage, that the material would have been sifted beforehand. So, while our opportunities on the Floor are limited, we should at least have a body of our own, and a traditional body, which would sift the material.
It is clear that the Opposition, with whom we had discussions before, do not agree with this point of view, but as far as I can see from the Amendment which, I understand, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is to move, the Opposition go no further than to consider that the appointment of a Select Committee is not the appropriate way of dealing with the problem.
I hope—and I say this in the hope of hearing something to the advantage of the procedure of Parliament and the nationalised industries—that the Opposition will put forward some possible alternative of their own. We shall look forward to hearing what they have to say about their alternative proposals and what reasons they have for thinking their proposals would be better than the course which the Government themselves think best and intend to recommend to the House.
However, we admit as a Government, as the Prime Minister made clear in his announcement of 10th May, that the appointment of this Select Committee will still be an experiment. It will have to be judged by its results. I can modestly say that this experiment of a Select Committee will have to be reconsidered, if necessary, in the light of experience. Everything will depend, therefore, on the spirit in which the Committee sets about its task and the way it does its work. The basic principle was stated in paragraph 15 of the Report of the Select Committee under Lord Clitheroe, which said,
It is essential that the Committee which we are recommending will, when appointed, set up a tradition of conduct which will result in its being regarded by the Board not as an enemy or a critic"—
I do not think that the Opposition would disagree with that—
but as a confidant, and a protection against irresponsible pressure, as well as a guardian of the public interest.


These remarks, at any rate, however the practice may work out, are unexceptionable.
The Committee will be asked with regard to its agenda, as its predecessor was asked last year, to examine the Reports and Accounts of the nationalised industries. These Reports and Accounts seem to us to provide a convenient summary of what the nationalised industries are doing, and I suppose that these documents would constitute the most practical agenda for the Committee that we could possibly devise. As to the restrictions on the Committee's terms of reference, the previous Select Committee was debarred by its terms of reference from considering four types of subject matter, but it became clear by experience that an exact interpretation of these prohibitions was likely to lead to great difficulties and confusion. It is almost impossible to be exact in this field, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who is an expert on the subject, knew.
We have come to the conclusion, for that reason, that it is wiser to try not to debar the Committee from discussing certain questions by a series of specific prohibitions—and therefore we have learned something from experience—but simply to trust to the good sense and good will of the Committee itself. The Chairman of the Committee will have a particularly onerous and difficult task, because he will be making case law, as it were, by his conduct of the proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Do I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument correctly to the extent that he means that the proposal he has put forward is that the Select Committee which he envisages is to act without terms of reference?

Mr. Butler: No, the terms of reference are set out in the Motion.

Mr. Williams: But apart from that?

Mr. Butler: I think that as I continue my speech the hon. Member will see particularly what we have in mind. I read the Motion, which the hon. Member may not have heard, when people were moving, wisely, from the Chamber before the debate started.
The Committee will have regard to the general state of opinion in the House at the time of its appointment. I suggest that this debate will not leave very much doubt about that opinion. I was about to summarise it in two propositions. The Reports and Accounts reveal a wide range of subject matter all affecting the finances and efficiency and scope of the industries which the Committee can usefully consider. But, at its two extremes—namely where the issues involved are purely matters of day-to-day administration at the one extreme, and at the other where they are matters of major Government, as distinct from commercial, policy—it is surely right that the Committee should not seek to trespass upon the authority of those bodies respectively responsible, namely, in the one case, the Corporations themselves, and, in the other, the Ministers of the Crown.
Parliament has decided that nationalised industries are to be run not as Government Departments but, as far as possible, as independent commercial boards. As a result, their relationship to Parliament is different from the relationship of a Department such as the Post Office, and detailed investigations such as those conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor-General into day-to-day activities of Government Departments would not be appropriate. They ought not to be harried about matters of day-to-day administration, otherwise they will tend to lose that sense of independence and initiative which is so vital to a fundamentally commercial undertaking.

Mr. David Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that the letter which was written by the Prime Minister on 26th June, 1956, to the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress goes by the board? Is he aware that the following words appear in that letter:
Naturally the Government would not expect the Committee to interfere with the normal procedure over wages, conditions of employment …
and so forth? If there is no prohibition in its terms of reference, will the word of the Minister at the Dispatch Box be sufficient to prevent the Committee, when set up, from discussing these matters?

Mr. Butler: I intended to deal with wages. I do not want to go back on any


letter written by the Prime Minister. I know that the Trades Union Congress is interested in this matter and I should not like to lose any support from that quarter in the manner in which the House, through this procedural Committee, will interest itself in the industries.

Mr. James Callaghan: This is a matter of substance, not merely in relation to wages, but to other issues. In what way will the Committee be debarred from discussing matters of day-to-day administration, even if it is the Government's desire that it should not, and the Committee, in its wisdom, decides to do so?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than to say that we lay down general guidance for the Committee and depend upon it to carry out its duties. I do not see that we can do more. The House is entitled to discuss nationalised industries on the Floor, if we set up the Committee, we are hoping that we shall find a body which will screen some of the material and enable us to use the sparse time that we have available to discuss major issues.
If this scheme does not work, we shall have to find an alternative. The appointment of the Committee is an act of faith, and I hope that the Committee will follow the lines which I have indicated from the Dispatch Box. To go further, would be to claim something that I could not claim. If we were to interfere I do not think that we should find it easy to obtain the services of first-class men on the boards of the Corporations. This was recognised by the Clitheroe Committee which made the observation which I have just made, and with which I agree, in paragraph 22 of its Report. Equally, however, the Corporations should not be cross-examined on those particular issues of policy which Parliament, in enacting the relevant statutes, clearly regarded as reserved to Ministers. The proper place for discussion of issues of that kind is on the Floor of the House where, by all our practice and tradition, Ministers are properly answerable to the House.
The Select Committee of last Session found some difficulty in striking the right course between these extremes, but I am of the opinion that this difficulty may have been, to some extent, the result of its approaching the subject in rather

too negative a spirit. This may have been because the terms of reference drew too much attention to prohibitions and the Committee gave much attention to ascertaining what its terms of reference prevented it from doing when it might have explored opportunities which a reasonable interpretation could have left open to it. I think that that is advice that could be given to the new Select Committee when it is set up.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I, as a member of that Committee, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we considered a large number of possible subjects for discussion and found in every case that it was either a matter of detailed administration, or one in which the Minister ought to have, might have, and probably did have, some influence with the Committee and it came under his responsibility?

Mr. Butler: It might help the right hon. Gentleman if at this stage I gave one or two examples of the subjects to which, as I have worked out, it might be possible for this Select Committee to turn its attention straight away. One would be the financial outcome of operations. That is a fairly broad subject. Secondly, the working of the industry
with reference to the devolution of authority within it. Thirdly, the working
of the industry with reference to the techniques of managerial efficiency. Fourthly, recruitment and training
of technical and managerial staff. Fifthly, relations with consumer councils
and the public. Sixthly, relations
with outside industries. Seventhly,
the unremunerative responsibilities of the boards. These are only examples. I cannot go on for ever because in that case we would not appoint a Select Committee.
These are all examples which are a hint to the proposed Select Committee, steering between the two extremes I have mentioned, that there is valuable work to be done quite apart from the examination of the Reports and the Accounts which are the broad terms of reference.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), may I say that when I said the previous Select Committee spent a great deal of its time upon the negative aspect, it was not because I wished to criticise its members, some of whom I am closely associated with, or to criticise the right


hon. Gentleman? It is extraordinarily difficult to find, in a hurry, the right relationship between Parliament and the nationalised industries, and if this debate does anything to clear it up, we shall have done some good. At the moment I am sure it is right to try the experiment of another Select Committee on the lines I am recommending.
We are making a fresh start today. While it seems to the Government to be almost beyond argument that the two extremes—detailed interference at one end and Ministerial responsibility at the other—are not suitable fields for a Select Committee to indulge in or explore, we are confident that the Committee can, in its good sense, concentrate on the wide range of subject matter to which I have referred and which lies between. That is why I said this proposal was an act of faith.
In addition, over the entire range of the activities of the nationalised industries there are certain questions in which any intervention by a Select Committee would be definitely undesirable. One example is the type of question which is dealt with by machinery established by statute—and this is the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones)—namely, the fares and charges dealt with by the Transport Tribunal.
Another, and perhaps even more important question, is the type affecting wages, conditions of employment, and so forth, all the issues of which are normally decided by collective bargaining arrangements. Therefore, in moving for the appointment of this Select Committee I deliberately answer the hon. Gentleman in his reference to the attitude of the T.U.C. by saying that it would be undesirable if these matters came within the purview of the Select Committee.
I need not labour the point which is involved here, but I should like to be explicit about it. Where it has been decided, whether by statute or by long-established practice, that a certain question should be handled by defined machinery, no good can come of creating an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty about that machinery, as would be inevitable if it were subjected to the type of detailed scrutiny which a Select Committee might properly bring to its task.

Mr. Percy Collick: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, expressing the opinion of the Government on this matter. If I understand him aright, unless there are terms of reference to the Select Committee in which these matters are closely defined there will still be nothing to prevent that Committee doing what the Minister is talking about, will there?

Mr. Butler: I am saying that we think, if we lay down a series of prohibitions, and if we try in any way to enlarge by definition the reference to the Reports and the Accounts, we should be doing more harm than good. By stating this on behalf of the Government—and I have deliberately moved this Motion myself so as to give it as much authority on the part of the Government as we can at the present time—I have to define what I think will be fields in which it would be undesirable for the Committee to intervene. Frankly, if the Select Committee should intervene in those fields we would have to provide—because the Government have the right of proposition in this House—some alternative machinery by which the job could be done.

Mr. Callaghan: We are trying to get the mind of the Government as clearly as we can. May I take the recent example which the right hon. Gentleman gave? An examination of the financial outcome of operations in the case of the Transport Commission would clearly be related to the level of charges fixed by the Tribunal, and the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not think that matters which fall within formal machinery of this kind should be reviewed by the Select Committee. How can such a Committee effectively review the financial outcome unless at the same time it looks at the level of charges?

Mr. Butler: That is a good question. One has to differentiate between the Select Committee endeavouring to usurp, for example, the work of the Transport Tribunal in fixing fares and charges from an animadversion by it upon the state of fares and charges in its relation to the financial outcome. That is the differentiation which the Committee would have to make. That is why, in the sentence which I had just enunciated about defined machinery, I wanted to make it clear that the members of the


Select Committee should not attempt to usurp the functions of defined machinery. Both in looking at Reports—and the word "report" means what it says—and in looking at Accounts, the members of the Committee must have regard to facts as they have emerged from the deliberations of established tribunals such as those to which I have referred. I hope that is sufficiently judicial for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East, to swallow.
I may sum up in this simple way. The results of a specific piece of defined machinery working may sometimes need to engage the attention of the Select Committee in so far as it may affect the economic operations of a nationalised industry. But that is a very different matter from usurping the functions of, for example, the Transport Tribunal or attempting to take the place of the proper, collective bargaining machinery upon which the wages and conditions of this country so rightly, and to such a large extent, depend.
As to the machinery itself, and the way in which that machinery is constituted, and the way in which it works, all these are questions which are not, in the view of the Government, suitable for consideration by a Select Committee. For instance, having examined the results in the form of fares and wages as they affect the economic situation, the Committee would not, in our view, be properly discharging its task if it were to consider the constitution or the performance of the duties of such a body. For example, we should not expect the Select Committee to interfere with the normal negotiations for wages, conditions and so forth. I say that again.
I want now to turn to the assistance which we propose to give to the Committee.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Would it be competent for the Select Committee which the Lord Privy Seal has in mind to recommend at any time, having regard to the prevailing financial circumstances of a given nationalised industry, that, for example, the wages paid or the profits obtained were greater than the economy could bear?

Mr. Butler: I used the word "animadversion" which in simple English means

"observation". I do not think we can eliminate from the powers of a Select Committee that of making observations. I do not see how we could do so, because this is an experiment and, as I have said, the previous Select Committee had to throw in the sponge because it found the work too difficult. I believe that this Select Committee will, under the right chairman, be able to perform a useful task in screening material for the House of Commons. That is all I say. I would not exclude observations about the economic effect of certain measures, but I would exclude interference with the machinery itself.
Now about the assistance to be given
to the Select Committee. We want its members to have the maximum of practical and effective help. They will be granted the usual powers to require persons, papers and records to be made available to them. No doubt the Committee will wish to summon spokesmen of the industries concerned, and of the relevant Departments, to give evidence. Moreover, as the Prime Minister indicated on 10th May, there will be available to the Committee the advice and assistance of those senior Treasury officers who are in charge of the Treasury Divisions concerned with the industries in question. We think they should at all times be available to the Select Committee. That will be an improvement upon the assistance available to the last Select Committee.
Formally, those officers would appear as witnesses before the Select Committee, as would any other individuals whom the Select Committee saw fit to summon, but, although they would have that formal position as witnesses, we hope that they would, by more or less continuous attendance at the Select Committee's meetings, come to occupy a position not dissimilar from that occupied by the Treasury Officers of Accounts at meetings of the Public Accounts Committee. In relation to Accounts, of course, this Select Committee would be, so to speak, a cousin or distant relation of the Public Accounts Committee. Thus, the officers would both contribute to, and themselves benefit by, the body of knowledge and experience which would gradually be built up by the Select Committee's deliberations. We are confident that, by the sort of mutual relationship which can


be created in this way, the Select Committee could do a really better job than the last one was able to do with the limited resources at its disposal.
We do not propose to adopt the recommendation of the original Clitheroe Committee that the Select Committee
should be advised by a whole-time officer with the status of Comptroller and Auditor-General. To give effect to that recommendation would, in any event, involve legislation which would tend to fix the pattern of the Select Committee's work too definitely and too finally. We, therefore, propose this intermediate way, which, from my own knowledge of the officers concerned, having been at the Treasury for some time, I believe will be of the greatest value to the Select Committee. I believe it will really work.

Sir Ian Horobin: Do I understand there will be no continuing assistance to the Select Committee on the accountancy side when it transfers its discussions or considerations from one nationalised industry to another, or would it be possible, by an extension of earlier practice, for it to keep the same Treasury accountancy assistance over a field wider than any one particular nationalised industry?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I think that the way it will work is as follows. There will obviously be one senior Treasury officer who already has experience of the whole field, and, indeed, in his own sphere of responsibility, he would have to be assisted by certain officers concerned with particular industries. It would be through the permanent member, so to speak, that there would be continuity between individual industries.
I have done my best in these brief opening remarks—I know a number of other hon. Members wish to speak—to give the House an indication in general terms of the way in which the Government hope that the Select Committee may work. In life one has to decide either to define things absolutely or to commit what amounts to an act of faith and discretion. We are not in either case, whether we are to define very closely or to commit an act of faith, taking an absolutely final decision about the best method of associating the House with the nationalised industries. It may be that the scheme will not work.
We shall not listen to the Opposition point of view in any spirit of regret or bitterness that hon. Members opposite should not accept our proposal, because this is far too difficult a subject and one upon which there must be a difference of opinion. However, we hope that, by experience, we may find the solution, if the new Select Committee works, as I have a hunch it may, perhaps just for this Session at any rate, we may be able to build upon that and find the right method of associating Parliament with the industries which have been nationalised in this sector.
I invite the House to approve the Motion, and I also invite the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who will be speaking for the Opposition, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, with all their ability, to make further constructive suggestions so that when we set up the Select Committee we may have a corpus of doctrine upon which to work; and if the Committee does not work, we shall then be able to build from this debate.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, while recognising the need for improving arrangements for Parliamentary discussion of the affairs of the Nationalised Industries, does not consider that the appointment of the proposed Select Committee is the appropriate way of dealing with this problem.
I acknowledge the approach of the Leader of the House to this question, but I regret that the Opposition cannot support the Motion. I understand that he will shortly have to leave for other discussions. We quite understand that that should be so and are ready to release him. We only hope that the outcome of his discussions will be satisfactory. We understand that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will later be speaking for the Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I shall have the greatest pleasure in listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall be very glad if the House will excuse me after that.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that everyone understands why the Leader of the House will have to leave.
It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), I think,


who said, "Why gaze into the crystal when you can read the book?" When the right hon. Gentleman invites us to undertake this act of faith, we, in return, say to him," Why go on disillusioning yourself so many more times?" We have been through all this before. History teaches us that history teaches us nothing, apparently. It is precisely because we have had this experience of what a Select Committee can do and what it is not free to do that we have been forced to say, in respect of the Motion, "There is a great deal in your criticism, but we cannot accept your solution."
Nothing in the world is perfect, and certainly not the organisation of either the nationalised industries or large-scale private industry. The organisation of all those industries is engaging the attention of everyone who is concerned with the structure of British industry today, whether the industries be privately or publicly owned. No one on this side of the House will say that the form of the industries devised in 1947 should necessarily persist in 1957. If we cannot learn by experience, we are poor learners.
The Opposition would certainly always be willing to look at constructive suggestions which are put forward, and it is in that frame of mind that we are approaching the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. However, I do not think that the Government have properly thought this matter out. The right hon. Gentleman has one of the most acute minds in the House of Commons—no one is more capable than he is of getting to the heart of a problem—and when he is obscure, it is, in my view, a deliberate obscurity and not an obscurity which arises because he is unable to penetrate the problem.
When I and my hon. Friends asked him earlier about the manner in which the Select Committee would operate, I think the whole House was left in as much of a fog about the subject as it has been by the right hon. Gentleman's answers in relation to some more contentious matters which have been discussed in the last few weeks. What he said, in effect, was, "We are not giving the Select Committee any terms of reference, because when we gave the last Select Committee specific terms of reference it failed."
Nevertheless, in the course of his speech he indicated—I hope he will correct me

if my interpretation is wrong—that it was the Government's view that all the matters which were excluded from the terms of reference of the March, 1955, Select Committee should be excluded on this occasion. He said that questions
which concerned Ministerial responsibility should not engage the attention of this Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) asked a specific question about wages and conditions of employment, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it would be improper for the Select Committee to engage in such discussions. There is also the question of matters of day-to-day administration. The right hon. Gentleman said that one should not harry the nationalised industries upon those and other matters falling to be considered through formal machinery, namely, fares fixed by the Transport Tribunal. He said that it would not be within the purview of the Select Committee to criticise what had been done.
Those are exactly the four matters which were excluded on the last occasion when a Select Committee was set up. What difference the right hon. Gentleman thinks is being made by not excluding them in the terms of reference but indicating that the view of the Government is that they should not be considered I am not quite sure, unless it be this. No, I do not wish to introduce that. I will not say what I was going to say, because this is a very harmonious discussion. I will put it the other way round.
In doing what he is doing, although he indicated the Government's view, the right hon. Gentleman is not preventing any hon. Member from raising any of these issues in a Committee room. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what we suspect. We suspect that hon. Members, some of whom are present here today, will use this Select Committee as an opportunity for embarking on that.

Sir I. Horobin: In that case it would be wound up.

Mr. Callaghan: Maybe, but perhaps the damage will then have been done.
Let me put one or two of the possibilities to the right hon. Gentleman. There was a reference in the last Report of the British Transport Commission to the strike of the Associated Society of


Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. I have no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman were a member of the Committee he would say, "This is not a subject on which we should have a postmortem", but would he care to say that no hon. Member of this House would not relish that opportunity? There might be one hon. Member of the House who would relish the opportunity of doing mischief and damage on a matter of that sort. If the opportunity were allowed him, he could do far more damage than this Committee could do good.
I say to the light hon. Gentleman that those who have had to sit and listen to some of the muckraking talks on nationalised industries which have been instituted by some of his hon. Friends believe that this horse has come from the wrong stable, that it is, in fact, another example of yielding to backbench driving. The hon. Member is waiting for me to mention him, so I will now gratify his vanity. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is to the nationalised industries what the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) is to the Suez Canal. Both of them afflict the Government in the same way.
If we have Members of this Committee who are to follow the lines which have been followed in debates on these nationalised industries, I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is our considered view that more harm will be done to the morale of those industries—to the operative and the managerial grades—than any good which will result from the examination which might be made. I can understand, in the academic atmosphere in which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this debate, that on the surface it looks a very attractive proposition. In some ways I can find myself not objecting to it if the history of the last few years had been different, but it has not been different.
We had an example when we were intended to discuss this matter in June. We had an example of how a most trivial incident concerned with the day-to-day administration of the National Coal Board was elevated into an Amendment, discussed at great length by some of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, engaging the attention of the House, and

clearly of no value at all to the sort of exercise we want to pursue in getting a reasonable and fair discussion of the affairs of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I am sure that in the harmonious atmosphere of our debates the hon. Member would not wish to misrepresent what the purpose of the exercise of last June was. It was on the question of raising fresh capital, increasing the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board. Surely therein enshrined was a very important principle, whether the nationalised industries should come to the House every five or every seven years for a renewal of borrowing powers, or whether the House should exercise an annual control over and the vetting of new money for the industries. That was not a matter of expediency, but a very important matter.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Why did the hon. Member not vote for it?

Mr. Callaghan: It is astonishing how the hon. Member for Kidderminster has a capacity for deceiving himself. My recollection of him that night is not that of discussing the matter in those terms, but of discussing the acquisition by the Coal Board of a so-called country mansion and bringing in photographs from the Daily Express, which he waved about in the House, thereby reducing the debate to the level of a Conservative ward meeting.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want that sort of thing done. I fully accept his bona fides and those of other hon. Members opposite who have discussed this matter, but can he be sure that his hon. Friend will not be on the Select Committee?

Sir I. Horobin: As the Press would not be present, perhaps it would be a waste of his lime.

Mr. Callaghan: That is a more stinging rebuke than I could possibly have effected.
I should like to examine some of the tasks that this Committee is apparently to have allocated to it. The Minister did give us some general illustrations. He talked, for example, about the financial outcome of operations. I quoted to him what I thought a particular and immediate difficulty in relation to the Transport


Commission. Let us take another illustration, as the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is to reply to the debate.
Let us take the case of B.O.A.C. Last spring, on 23rd April, the Minister said:
We must fly British, all British. That is the assignment I intend to give the new chairman and his colleagues. One clear precedent I intend to maintain is that the Board's policy is a matter between me and the chairman.
Four days later the right hon. Gentleman corrected that statement, saying:
It is for the B.O.A.C. chairman, after full consultation with his Board and the aircraft manufacturers, to come forward with proposals for the aircraft needed for further operations.
I must say I thought that the second statement of policy much more acceptable than the first one, but, on every count, if this Committee is to consider the financial outcome of operations it has to consider whether B.O.A.C. is right to attempt to fly all British or whether it should purchase American Boeing aircraft in order to put itself into a financial state in which it will make a profit. Is its task to support the British aircraft industry, or to return a commercial surplus? I do not think I need carry this any further. Where is the Committee to get to once it embarks on examining the financial outcome of air-aircraft operations?

Sir James Hutchison: I am indebted to the hon. Member for giving way, because I am most interested in this problem, as I sat on the previous Committee. I should have thought the answer to the sort of question he is putting is that the Committee would be entitled to examine this matter and come to a conclusion, but not thereafter to try to interfere with policy. It would merely say what the result of following that policy might amount to. Would not that be a fair interpretation?

Mr. Callaghan: I suppose that that would follow, but I have not quite reached that conclusion yet.
I was going on to ask the Minister, as the Government, I suppose, must have some views about this, who does he think is to come before the Committee? Is the Committee to send for B.O.A.C. officers? Will they be exposed to cross-examination by hon. Members of this House, asking, "Why did you recommend the purchase of BC.7C's rather than Bristol Britannias?"
Or, alternatively, they might be asked, "Why do you think that British aircraft should form the basis, and not American aircraft?" Are officers of the Board who are responsible for advising members of the Board on these matters to be subject to cross-examination on the nature of their advice and the reasons they gave it, or are those who come in front of the Committee to be limited to members of the Boards themselves?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: And in public, too.

Mr. Callaghan: As my right hon. Friend interjects, all this is to be in public.
These are all highly commercial and competitive operations, affecting a great many responsibilities of B.O.A.C. in its relation to corporations overseas. I suppose that it would be possible for the matter to be conducted in private, if necessary, but a certain amount of the value of the exercise would then be lost. It seems to me that the lowest the right hon. Gentleman can go, and the least he can say, is that members of the Board themselves and not their officers should come in front of this Select Committee; otherwise, it will put the servants of the Board in an extremely difficult position.
I shall leave that point, because I am anxious not to be too long, and we have only a short debate, although we really need a long one to discuss the subject fully. What about the relationships between the Minister and the Board? Suppose the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation had persisted in his view that American aircraft should be ruled out in this connection, and that we were to fly all-British—British engines in British planes. A member of the Board would presumably come along and say, "We got our direction from the Minister".
The Lord Privy Seal said that a spokesman for the Department would come before the Committee? Who will it be? Will it be the Permanent Secretary, or one of his officials—or is the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to come? If it is the latter, there is no need for me to tell the Lord Privy Seal—who has much more experience of the House than I have—that we are going to stumble into great constitutional changes by accident. Although I am in favour of the empirical approach I want to see where the approach will land us in the end. We may find ourselves, as a Parliament, in a


commission, at any rate so far as the responsibilities of Ministers and nationalised industries are concerned.
Let me take the question of the financial outcome of operations, and consider the matter of fares again. Could the Select Committee discuss the Government intervention which took place in April, 1952, when they directed the London Transport Executive not to raise certain fares, for which increase sanction had already been given, I believe, by the Transport Tribunal—or one of the bodies which are supposed to consider such matters? The Government stepped in and said, "No"—in my view for highly party reasons, which had nothing to do with the national interest; unless the right hon. Gentleman equates the national interest with winning control of the London County Council. Perhaps it is the same thing from his point of view, but it is not from mine.
In this case, is the Committee to be able to roam over all this ground again—because it will be in the accounts, and the direction by the Government will be in the Annual Report—or, because it is a question of Ministerial responsibility, will it be taken out of the hands of the Committee and brought back into the ambit of discussion upon the Floor of the House? If it is the second alternative—and I think it must be—how does the Lord Privy Seal think that the financial outcome of operations can be sensibly discussed when decisions have been taken which make the difference betwen a profit and a loss in the accounts of the Transport Commission?
Then there is the question of coal prices. It is widely believed that the Coal Board wanted to raise its prices of coal before the General Election. It is also widely believed that the right hon. Member who represented Ladywood resisted the proposal. What we know happened is that coal prices were not raised until after the Election—and that the only reward which the right hon. Gentleman had was to be dismissed, which was a poor reward for the help he gave in winning the Election.

Mr. D. Jones: My hon. Friend is not quite correct. The right hon. Gentleman ran away from Ladywood, and is now the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd).

Mr. Callaghan: Then I beg his pardon.

Mr. Jones: And he was not dismissed; he was made redundant.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree that the loss which the Coal Board ran into last year was very largely the consequence of the decision of the Government not to sanction price increases until the General Election had been held. If this Committee is to be able to discuss sensibly the financial outcome of operations and is to be able to go over all this ground, is the right hon. Gentleman to be called in front of it and examined upon the part he has played? Are officials of the Coal Board to be called in front of it and asked, "Did you, in fact, ask the Government to increase coal prices? If so, what reply did you get?" I hope that the right hon. Gentleman realises where this Committee is going if it does not have terms of reference.
It is no use his saying, "In my view it would be improper for this Committee to discuss matters concerning the responsibility of Ministers," if the Committee upstairs is staffed by certain hon. Members who, as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, know, are particularly ingenious in the manner in which they debate matters which you would prefer not to have debated. If some of those Members are on the Committee it will run wildfire throughout the whole gamut and range of the reports and accounts of the nationalised industries.
I paid tribute to the Lord Privy Seal's acumen just now, but in this matter the Government have thrown up the sponge; the effort of cerebration has been too much for them. They considered what happened in the case of the last Committee, when the Government made an attempt to define its terms of reference, and they said, "Let us throw the whole lot at them—kitchen sink and all—and see what they can make of it." We do not believe that this way of dealing with the matter will be of any use to the nationalised industries. It will not improve their morale, nor do I believe for one moment that it will increase their efficiency.
In my view, which is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who try to look at the matter fairly and want to do something about it, this proposal will blur the chain of responsibility from the


Boards to the Ministers and, through the Ministers, to Parliament. It will interfere with that chain which, in any command, must be kept clear, by poking in this Parliamentary Committee half-way up. It will, in fact, create the very bureaucracy and the fear that the right hon. Gentleman always wants to get rid of. People will be bound to look over their shoulders if, for example, officers of the Board of B.O.A.C. are to be called in front of this Committee and asked to justify their decision to recommend the purchase of British rather than American aircraft. They will always be liable to say, "I am being challenged on this and there may be a post mortem on it in 18 months' or two years' time."
The views of the T.U.C. were conveyed to the Prime Minister quite clearly. It said that in its view adequate information was already available in the annual reports, and the appointment of a Select Committee of this sort to examine and report on nationalised industries would be neither useful nor desirable. The T.U.C. was looking at the matter purely from the point of view of workers in the industry. It thought that such a Committee would weaken the authority of industries to manage their own affairs, and also weaken Ministerial responsibility for supervision. In its view on this matter I think that the T.U.C. is much nearer the truth than is the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Vincent Tewson wrote to the Prime Minister on 3rd July, as the Lord Privy Seal knows, saying that the Government should specifically exclude the question of collective bargaining from the Committee's purview. The Government have not done so, although the Minister has expressed his view that it should not be discussed by the Committee. Again, I ask the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what authority will that expression of opinion carry in a Committee of Members of Parliament, sitting upstairs and devising their own procedure under the general rules of the House, having been charged with the responsibility of examining the accounts and reports in which these matters will appear?
I should like to try to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal that we should say something constructive about this matter. I must say, having thought

about this matter for several years, that it is much easier to be destructive than constructive. I readily acknowledge that charge, if anybody wants to make it, but I go on to say that it is no use setting up a Committee and then saying, "Do not let us consider the consequences; let us put something on its plate and hope for the best." That does not seem to me to be a sensible way of proceeding either.
I read through the 1955 Report of the British Transport Commission in paragraph 32 of which it says that Parliament sat for 21 weeks last year and that during that time a total of 258 Parliamentary Questions were asked and answered, that 1,323 cases were put forward by hon. Members and were discussed with them or that Ministers entered into written correspondence with them. There was a debate on the Commission's Annual Report and Accounts, a debate on the British Transport Commission's Bill, a debate on the Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill and several debates in part on Adjournment Motions on matters relating to questions as far apart as the condition of level crossings, transport in north-east Essex, whether there should be battery rail-cars in Scotland, and the use of diesel cars.
There was a wide range of debate on all these matters during the last twelve months, and I sometimes wonder whether we are as fully seized of the opportunities that exist, which we can create, and which, in fact, hon. Gentlemen who are interested follow. My own view is that there is much more discussion of the affairs of the nationalised industries in this House than is generally accepted or realised by a great many of the critics. In addition, we have what I might vulgarly call the seven-year itch, under which, apparently, the nationalised industries are to be subject to review in committees from time to time. We have just had the Herbert Committee on electricity. In my view, that Committee reached the wrong conclusions, but I thought that it had done a very useful job in stating the affairs of the industry.
Let me put to the Minister in a few sentences one or two other points. I should like him to know—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman then contemplate that there should be an


extension of these sort of committees, like the Herbert Committee, over a regular period and that they should be expanded into committees of experts in no way connected with this House in order to analyse either the accounts or the commercial future of any particular industry? Is that suggested?

Mr. Callaghan: I am just coming to those points.
I would like to inform the House, and I think hon. Members will understand what I am saying, that the Labour Party this year is, in fact, undertaking a comprehensive review of these problems of accountability and efficiency of the nationalised industries. A number of proposals have already been put forward. These proposals are being studied and will in due course, when analysed, be laid for public discussion by hon. Members opposite. If hon. Members opposite pay as much attention to them as they do to some our other proposals, I am sure there will be a great deal of debate from which, I am equally sure, they will benefit.
At the moment we are in the middle of considering these problems, and therefore I am not able to put forward any final conclusions to the House. But two or three things could be put forward. Take the small one first. The Ministers have the power, which I believe is never used, to secure information from the nationalised industries in relation to matters of day-to-day management and to answer Questions if they so desire. That power is written into the Statute. A decision was taken way back in 1948 that although Ministers would answer Questions on matters relating to the national interest, they would not answer Questions which involved them in securing information from the nationalised boards.
We all know that Ministers get this information, and I put it to the Lord Privy Seal that there is here a case for extending the ambit of Parliamentary Answers so that hon. Members can ask Questions which do not involve Ministerial responsibility, but in respect of which Ministers can use their statutory powers to secure information in order to convey it to the House. I would say that there is an especial case for this in the matter of the National Coal Board where what happens in the case of the Board

affects the life of a whole community, a whole valley. We have all seen what can happen when a pit closes. When one goes to the top of some of our valleys in South Wales one can see the effects that the closing of a pit has on the life of a whole community.
I see no reason why Ministers should not undertake to secure from the National Coal Board public statements which they can use in HANSARD. They have been given the statutory powers in order that hon. Members should have an opportunity of discharging their responsibilities in these matters. That is a small point, but one on which, I think, a decision could be taken pretty well straight away. It is not a radical requirement, and I do not claim that for it.
Another suggestion that we are considering—and I hope that we shall come forward with recommendations—is the composition and the nature of the consultative committees and their relationship with the nationalised boards. Speaking for myself, I do not like the system under which in some cases the consultative committees draw their officers from the nationalised boards. I think that there ought to be more publicity for the affairs and activities of the consultative committees. I should like to see a much closer direct relationship between the consultative committees and the local communities which they are supposed to represent.
All these are matters which I think could well be examined and which would, in fact, take a little of the burden off the backs of hon. Members who are being used as channels of grievance at the present time and put it on to the shoulders of local persons duly appointed to consider these matters. That is a matter to which I would pay more attention.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) asked about the extension of the Herbert Committee. One of the matters that we are examining is the possibility of some sort of audit team which' would roam over the whole of the field of the nationalised industries. I am not saying that this is a final conclusion, but it is one of the projects that we are examining as an alternative to the Herbert Committee, and it is something which has been given an airing by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who


has paid great attention to the problem. It is a matter to which we must pay attention.
Most radical of all is the view which attracts some of my hon. Friends, but which I do not share, that these boards should come under what is called the Post Office type of administration. I would only say about that that I do not think one necessarily wants the same pattern of organisation for all industries. By the same token, I do not think that a Select Committee to consider the nationalised industries should necessarily have the same tasks in relation to every industry. There is clearly a distinction between the National Coal Board, which has the responsibility for producing all the coal in the country, and British Railways, which are highly competitive with private road haulage concerns. I would much deprecate—and I hope that hon. Members opposite would also—that all the commercial activities of the railways should be exposed to the view of their competitors. That seems quite unfair.
These are matters which we think need a great deal more attention than has been paid to them so far. All these issues can be worked out, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss when I say that his proposal is a slipshod proposal because it evades the major issues that I have been trying to discuss this afternoon. It does not give a clear reply to the questions of responsibility or, indeed, to the principles which should be followed in this matter. It is because of that fact that we feel that this additional Select Committee will not meet the purpose and that much more detailed and proving study is needed. For that reason, we shall have to oppose the Government this afternoon.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.10 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: It is with a good deal of diffidence that I take it upon myself to address the House on this subject. But, on the other hand, I was a member of Lord Clitheroe's original Select Committee, and I was Chairman of the second and third Select Committees; and I should like to remind the House exactly why those Select Committees came into being.
There was universal dissatisfaction among hon. Members on both sides of the House over the difficulties of getting information about the nationalised industries by means of Questions. The position was that no Question was in order unless a Minister had taken responsibility for a particular activity of a nationalised industry. At that stage, the Ministers connected with the nationalised industries had a very large range of activities in which, it was said, they had taken no responsibility. Accordingly, the House was unable, day after day and week after week, to get information about vital matters affecting the nationalised industries. Under those circumstances came the first demand for a Select Committee to consider the position.
The House will remember that the Select Committee recommended that it did not think it could make any substantial alteration as regards the rule about Questions, because, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), it was felt that there would be so many Questions affecting the nationalised industries that the Order Paper would become completely flooded out. The Select Committee gave the greatest consideration to that suggestion, but it reported against it. Instead, the Committee—I think unanimously, though I am not sure, but, at any rate, by a majority—suggested that there should be a Select Committee of this House to deal with matters affecting the nationalised industries.

Mr. Mikardo: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in coming to the conclusion that if Questions were permitted there would be a flood of Questions about the nationalised industries, the Committee took into account the fact that there are some nationalised industries already—such as the Post Office, the Royal Dockyards and the Royal Ordnance factories—where no inhibition on Questions exists and, in fact, the Order Paper is not flooded out with Questions about them?

Sir P. Spens: The view taken by the Committee was that those activities, which are managed departmentally, had been going on for a long time and there was comparatively little public interest in them; whereas the nationalised industries were new and were very much the object


of inquisitiveness—if I may so put it—on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. John Baird: is it not a fact that when the new National Health Service was introduced there was a flood of Questions put to the Minister for the first year or two but that the position gradually settled down?

Sir P. Spens: I cannot possibly compare the volume of Questions on the National Health Service and the volume of Questions on the nationalised industries. But that was the considered conclusion of the Committee, which reported that there should be a Select Committee.
There was a feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the House that some form of closer relationship between the nationalised industries and the House was desirable. It is put in the expression that the nationalised industries should be more accountable to the House. "Accountability" is the word used. I have never been quite sure in my own mind exactly what is meant by "accountability"—even when it is used in the leading article in The Times this morning. I do not know whether it is confined to financial accountability or general accountability. Of course, if it is general accountability, it goes very wide indeed, and we get very nearly to the responsibility of a Department. I do not take that view. I think the House did want a great deal more up-to-date and closer information from time to time about the nationalised industries. Accordingly, when the honour was done to me of suggesting that I should become the Chairman of the second and third Select Committees, I took that responsibility upon myself.
But, when we came to look at the terms of reference of these Committees, we were put in this great difficulty. We were asked to obtain for the House,
… further information as to so much of the current policy and practices of those industries as are not matters which "—
are contained in the exclusions in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). When we came to consider any policy or any practice, we found it extremely difficult—right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front

Benches will agree with me—to find any policy or practice in which we thought the House would be interested which did not come more or less inside the exclusions. The position of the unfortunate Chairman was that he would have been constantly hauling up members of the Committee and saying, "You cannot ask that, because that comes inside one or more of the exclusions." But we did our best, and we asked all the Departments connected with the nationalised industries to let us know to what extent our functions were limited regarding matters for which Ministers had taken responsibility.
We were given a whole flood of schedules which, I am bound to say, made me think that there were a great many subjects on which we could properly have asked questions. But still, the House was put in this dilemma; that when it asked a Question, there was no responsibility; but when we, as members of the Committee, tried to do our job, there was a large range of responsibilities from which we were excluded. Under those circumstances, we came to the conclusion that it would have been a waste of our time and that of the House to have gone on in the limited spheres where possibly we might have functioned. As a result, there still remains this general demand for some greater accountability and more up-to-date information for the House.
It is perfectly true that the proposed terms of reference refer to the Reports and Accounts. That was one of the difficulties. As all hon. Members know, the Reports and Accounts of one particular year come out about six months or nine months afterwards, so that there is always an out-of-date picture of what the nationalised industries are doing. On the other hand, the Report and Accounts of, shall we say, two years ago will refer, and do refer, to matters which are going on today. Starting on the subject matter of a Report, shall we say, of two years ago, no doubt it may be possible to ask for further information as to what is happening to date and keep the House more up to date in its information.
I do not in the least object to what has been a sort of indirect limitation on the terms of reference which have been put by my right hon. Friend today, but I should have thought it was perfectly clear that no responsibile Committee of this


House—having regard to the enormous importance of these nationalised industries in our economy—would start inquiring into wages and conditions of employment, when it knew what a frightfully important, ticklish—if I may use the word—and difficult subject was the whole thing.

Mr. David Jones: May I put this question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Assume that he was the Chairman of this proposed Select Committee and an hon. Member from either side of the House who was a member of the Committee felt that he had an obligation to ask him a question on one of the paragraphs in the report concerning wages and conditions. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel bound by the undertaking of the Lord Privy Seal, in spite of the terms of reference, to refuse to allow that question to be put?

Sir P. Spens: I should feel bound, out of respect for my right hon. Friend, to use what influence I possessed to prevent that question from being put. I should be quite prepared—I will tell the hon. Gentleman this—to rule the question out and take a chance about what the House would say about my conduct.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that his position would be much stronger and much less open to challenge if, in fact, this were put into the Motion? Why not put it in?

Sir P. Spens: I do not think so. It is perfectly possible that a question affecting wages or conditions of employment might occur when we were considering something quite different, a casual question which would do no conceivable harm. This Motion means that we are not to take up as a subject of investigation terms and conditions of employment or deliberately to inquire into them and on our own make a report to the House about them. I understand that something much more than a broad hint has been given to the Committee, and I am sure that the Committee will comply with it. My own personal view is that all these four excepted subjects are ones which the Committee would never inquire into in any event or be at all pleased if any member attempted to do it.
Nor do I think the Committee will do any good at all unless it establishes a relationship of real friendship and cooperation with the nationalised industries. I say that straight away. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is not here. We have had all his evidence in front of us and we know exactly his point of view. We fully appreciate that any Select Committee that makes any inquiry that is likely to cause officials to go looking over their shoulders or to be anxious about their day-to-day work, will do no good whatsoever.
On the other hand, I am certain that not only does this House want more information about what is going on generally in the nationalised industries than we are getting by the reports discussed some nine months after they have been published and referring to a period at least a year before, but evidence given in front of Lord Clitheroe's Committee by the chairman of the nationalised industries themselves shows that there are often subjects which they would like brought to this House for discussion, after consideration by a Select Committee.
It is not going to be a one-way traffic, and it will not be any good if it is. It will be of use to the House and the economy generally only if proper friendly relations are established between the nationalised industries and a Select Committee of this House to work together to bring about this indefinable relationship of more accountability of the nationalised industries to the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. R. Williams: I was not thinking of intervening, but I will take this opportunity of saying that, as I understand the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—which rather shakes me—it is this. Here are four perfectly sensible exclusions set out in the terms of reference. If we no longer have them so expressed, no sensible Committee would dream of discussing matters that would come within those exclusions. The Committee would impose upon itself a self-denying ordinance in the terms of these exclusions. If it did that, how could it proceed further?

Sir P. Spens: The difficulty is over the precise terms and about expressed exclusions on these lines. If they are in black and white in the terms of reference, then the moment any question comes up


within these four terms it has to be ruled completely out. It is because I feel that there should be a limiting factor upon discussions that are undesirable that I would most certainly accept the general rules in the proposed exclusions.
The nationalised industries are now almost the most important financial element in the whole of our economy. A great number of people both inside and outside this House know a great deal about one or more of them, but there are very few people, including myself, who know as much about them all. There is no organisation, so far as I know, that, so to speak, keeps the activities of the whole lot in one picture.
However difficult it is to define the terms of reference of a Select Committee of this House, it is worth trying as an experiment to have a limited number of Members of this House with a full-time staff trying to form a picture from the point of view of the national economy as a whole, of the activities of all the nationalised industries. That is exactly what I am told the party opposite is thinking of doing. I am all in favour of the party opposite or of any other organisation trying to do it, but I am inclined to think that it is the duty of this House to try to do it. These nationalised industries are part of our economy now, and I think it should be the duty of this House to get a complete picture of what is going on.
Let me take another constitutional point. As I understand it, no nationalised industry is entitled to embark upon any great capital expenditure without getting the approval of the Minister and of the Treasury representative in the Departments. I understand there is one official at least in the Treasury who knows more or less what they are all doing, but that there is no committee or anybody else in this House who is kept informed all the time. These are the things that the proposed Select Committee might be useful in doing.
I want to end as I began. If a Select Committee is to be looked on with a degree of hostility or suspicion by the nationalised industries, and if that suspicion and hostility cannot be overcome by the committee, then this Select Committee is likely to fail as much as the other two.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Williams: My difficulty arises chiefly because the Leader of the House in his observations put forward propositions relating to the exclusions which this Select Committee should have in mind of a far more elaborate kind than those which appeared in the terms of reference which the recent Select Committee found so difficult when it was carrying out its functions. I should have thought it would take many months indeed to analyse the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in order to decide precisely in what field it was possible for such a Select Committee to function.
I will make no bones about it. I am in favour of a Select Committee but I am most certainly opposed to the Select Committee which is now proposed, for a reason which appears to me to be obvious. The preliminary job has not yet been done. We had a stab at it, after 18 months of work, in the Clitheroe Committee more than three years ago and we arrived at a unanimous opinion and gave a unanimous report because we considered that such a Committee could function with proper safeguards. On that we were completely agreed.
Let us consider the position of the last Committee which was set up. The Government made an attempt to define as clearly as possible what the proper safeguards should be. Let there be no mistake about it; to set up a Select Committee without safeguards at all and to rely upon an act of faith is to risk industrial McCarthyism and irresponsibility and to make absolutely certain that there will be an absence of that consensus without which the Committee cannot do constructive work. If the Government adhere to their point and say that they will set up a Select Committee, regardless of the difficulties which the last one had when these perfectly reasonable exclusions were so clearly defined, and leave it to the common sense of the member of the Select Committee, what will happen?
The first thing that will happen will be that, rather than getting on with the job, there will be a discussion on interpretation. That will be done
with complete sincerity by Members on both
sides of the Committee. It will not necessarily be a bear garden because of the discussion on interpretation and it may not be controversial, but it will at the same time be based upon the uncertainty which will


arise if an attempt is made to consider within what limited field the Select Committee should work. It comes to this: that we agree, or at least a large number of us in this House agree, that there is a limited job that the Select Committee could do. Beyond that sphere in which the Select Committee should under strict terms of reference operate, it could become so fierce in its focus and scrutiny of the nationalised industries that the leaders of those industries would be more conscious of the scrutiny than they would be of the job to do which they are given statutory powers. In other words, we should have too much Parliamentary accountability. We could, if we were quite unrestrained in our demands for Parliamentary accountability, arrive at a point of view when all possible reasonable standards of initiative are crippled.
The first thing that we must have in our minds, if we are to make any progress at all, is that we must content ourselves with the clear fact that there is no possibility of a further substantial increase in public accountability by this method. Something can be done, but it is very limited indeed. The arguments against the establishment of a Select Committee are themselves very strong. They were set out in the Clitheroe Report in some detail. Those arguments have now been strengthened by the failure of this last Select Committee to be able to do any work. Anyone approaching this with a fresh mind for the first time, if he looks at the arguments against the establishing of a Select Committee, will find that they are far stronger than the somewhat tenuous propositions put by the Lord Privy Seal. His propositions were put not only on a basis of an act of faith in relation to the Committee; I would go so far as to say that his propositions rested more in the world of his hopes and dreams than in the world of fact.
In the world of fact, the arguments against the establishment of such a Committee are very powerful indeed. What are the consequences of saying that they are so powerful that a Select Committee should not in any circumstances be set up? That would be quite wrong to my mind because it would exclude any further advance in the field of public accountability. In those circumstances, I come down very solidly to this suggestion. I put it forward as a personal suggestion

and I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have not consulted my colleagues or discussed it with them.
This is the sort of friendly constructive debate in which we are all trying to make some progress, and I make this suggestion to the Minister, that there is a place at this time for a Select Committee but not of the type of which he is thinking. The Select Committee on which I sat, which is now conveniently referred to as the Clitheroe Committee, came to certain conclusions on the general question of whether a Select Committee should be set up. The part of its work which it thought it had done, and which I certainly thought that it had done, was the part relating to the safeguards that should apply. We all agree that there should be safeguards. Now the House is obviously in complete and strong disagreement as to what those safeguards should be and how they should be defined; whether they should be included in the terms of reference or not.
In those circumstances, is it not obvious that we have arrived at the point where we want a Select Committee to give careful consideration to this aspect of the matter—to do all the interpreting of these difficulties before the actual Select Committee which will deal with the Accounts gets on to the job at all? Otherwise the Select Committee proposed by the Government will have to do the preliminary job for which it might be by no means fitted because this is an entirely different type of job which has to be done, calling for very careful interpretation.
If the preliminary job of interpretation was done, so that the work of the Clitheroe Committee would have been carried on to a further point, I think that the House and the Government would then have been in a position in which they could say that they could now determine with some precision the very limited field within which this sort of Committee could function properly.
I beg the Government to realise that unless they do something of this kind they will not be in a position in which they have the necessary consensus. Such a Committee as this could not function at all if we had for instance certain types of political controversy. I make no reference to any individual Member of this House, but it is conceivable that a Member not too enthusiastic about nationalisation


might think that this was a very delightful way of getting some denationalisation through the back door. He might come along to this Committee and say, "What is all this nonsense about wages and conditions. These or those workers are being paid far too much and the present situation is that the financial policy of the Board is affected by that consideration."
He could drive very far along that road if he exercised a little ingenuity and even the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) would find himself in very great difficulty in preventing that line being followed. Then, of course, there would be an extraordinarily difficult situation if the tempers of Members were such that there was a period when violent attacks were being made on nationalisation by hon. Members on the other side of the House and a spirited defence
was being put up by Members on this side. Then we should not have a Select Committee but a bear-garden, and all this could happen because we had not gone to the trouble of realising that this was a much more complex thing than we had at first realised when we went through the evidence and that even after 18 months of careful study by people deeply interested and concerned there was a lot left to be done.
Since the work of the first Committee has in no sense been completely done, but that fact could not have been realised until this last Committee was set up, let us learn our lesson. Let us be constructive on both sides of the House. On the Government side they are not saying, "Here is a Committee which has demonstrated certain modifications which are necessary in the terms of reference." Oh no, they say in effect that these terms of reference are absolutely right, but for goodness sake do not express them precisely because otherwise the Committee could not work.
That, quite frankly, is the wrong way. It is a blundering, stupid and clumsy way of dealing with a subject, which calls, as the Lord Privy Seal very rightly said, for very great delicacy. I look forward to the day when there will be a Select Committee in relation to the nationalised industries, establishing a friendly relationship and giving information to this House on the very clearly

defined narrow terms on which that is possible in relation to the establishment of consensus. If we go beyond that all that we will do will be to make this House look ridiculous.
Suppose that we did deal with
questions which were the subject of collective bargaining and they were dealt with by the Select Committee at the very time when tempers were roused on both sides of the industry. What a deplorable situation would follow, reflecting gravely upon the Select Committee and the House and probably resulting in industrial unrest and confusion in the industry itself. What a contribution to make in the name of public accountability. It is high time that we got away from the myths and mystique involved in this. One need only use the phrase "public accountability" to get people opening their mouths and saying that this is all highly technical and very important. It is, but at the same time it is not something which we should press to a point where it causes danger, difficulty and maybe catastrophe in other ways.
Although I have had to speak critically of certain aspects of the proposals of the Government and the nature of the argument which has been put, I hope that I leave the Government with the thought that there is here some unfinished business. The Government have not the time, and if they had the time would not have the capacity, properly to do this job. It is a job for a Select Committee, but not of the type recommended by the Government.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: Very briefly, because we have not much time, I should like to explain why I support the setting up of a Select Committee with the terms of reference shown on the Order Paper. There is here something rather more than public accountability. What we have laboured for, and why one experiment of a Select Committee has already been tried, is to get a closer contact through hon. Members between the nationalised industries and the House of Commons, which is not only our desire but I think, the desire of the nationalised industries. That is something rather wider and more far-reaching than public accountability, which is of importance in itself.
In moving the Motion, the Leader of the House called this an experiment, and so it is. He called it an act of faith; in other words, an endeavour to do something which we all want to see done. I see nothing wrong with that. This is not the first time that the House has tried to evolve a new procedure and has done it by trial and error. Indeed, our whole system of Parliamentary government has been produced by a system of trial and error until it has emerged with this fine form of democratic government that is the envy of the whole world.
Why should we expect in this difficult and delicate situation to be right the first time? That is no reason for not going on with our endeavours. Because the first Committee could not see its way to work out its terms of reference that is no reason now for throwing up the sponge. It would be a very sad day if, in this country or in the House of Commons, we demurred from carrying on merely because we could not find the final and perfect solution in the first course of endeavour.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) naturally put forward many difficulties and many snags, some of them potential and some imaginative, and he pointed out, as was his duty, all the difficulties of the situation. We admit some of those difficulties. If we did not think that there were difficulties in the situation, we should probably not be debating the Motion today, because it would have gone through formally.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, and as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East underlined, the two main difficulties are that nothing the Committee does should interfere with the close and harmonious work between the Minister concerned and the nationalised industry concerned, and that the Committee should not be concerned with day-to-day matters of organisation in the nationalised industries.
I point out that a very fine Committee functions in the House, and has been doing so for many years, which labours under the same inhibition and prohibition about pronouncing on matters of policy. Yet it does fine work in relation to public accountability. I refer to the Select Committee on Estimates, of which I had the

honour to be a member until the end of last Session. To my knowledge, the Committee has not yet been reappointed. It is not able to pronounce on policy, but that does not prevent it from doing a tremendous amount of work in finding out the various ways in which Government Departments spend public money. That may well be a very useful precedent in this case.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Member not agree that most of that Committee's time is spent on matters of day-to-day administration by those Departments which, in the Lord Privy Seal's view, are excluded from the consideration of this proposed Committee?

Mr. Cole: That is not so. If one is analysing the expenditure of public money, one perforce has to consider a certain amount of day-to-day work. I cannot remember offhand the terms of reference of the Select Committee, but they are generally concerned with discussion of the expenditure of public money and whether it is used economically or wastefully and whether good value is obtained. I think that that is a fair summary. That denotes that some, but not by any means a large or majority proportion, of the Committee's time is spent on day-to-day matters. I do not want to score off the hon. Member, but I am speaking from three or four years' experience on that Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: I was on that Committee before the hon. Member came into the House.

Mr. Cole: I am prepared to accept that. My right hon. Friend made one very important observation about the nationalised industries. He said that they were becoming independent commercial organisations. I am sure that we are all very pleased to know that. We are glad to see the emergence of this business atmosphere which is coming about in the nationalised industries. I do not believe that anything which this Committee
with proper skill and judgment does will interfere with that process. On the contrary, it may help and accelerate that process.
When we were discussing this matter two years ago, an hon. Member opposite said—and the hon. Member for Cardiff,


South-East reiterated the point today—that those on nationalised boards would be looking over their shoulders, because there was some accountability to a Committee of Parliament. I disagreed with that view two years ago and I am happy to be able to point back and say, "I told you so." The sum of £1,200 million is to be spent over fifteen years and, perforce, with a sum of that magnitude there must be a certain degree of risk. That cannot be called looking over one's shoulder and being frightened to go out and spend money. That money is to be spent by the British Transport Commission with great enterprise and is absolute proof that members of nationalised boards do not look over their shoulders whether or not they are accountable to Parliament, The British Transport Commission is prepared to go forward with business enterprise to modernise its railways. The same state of affairs applies to other nationalised industries.

Mr. Moyle: I gather that the hon. Member desires that nationalised industries should become as independent and as commercial as possible. Can he name any chairman of any private industrial undertaking who would stand for five minutes the managerial interference which the Government propose to impose on the nationalised industries?

Mr. Cole: This issue was raised two years ago. I do not want to take up a lot of time in replying to it, but I will deal with it very quickly. Of course, the average large company whose dimensions are comparable with those of a nationalised industry is subject at several points to scrutiny—from shareholders, the registrar of companies, public opinion through the purchase of its goods, and in other ways and, with a very large company, on the Floor of the House, if the company offends against certain canons of public conduct.
I believe that the nationalised industries are emerging—we are pleased to see it—into a business atmosphere of a very high degree. We have these industries, and we want to make them work. They must work, because they are all basic industries and form a large part of our economy. We wish them well. In setting up a Select Committee in the terms of the Motion, we on this side of the House have no intention but

to try to assist the nationalised industries which may give evidence before the Select Committee in carrying out their business enterprises.
It is not impossible that the Select Committee, reviewing under its procedure all the nationalised industries and not only one nationalised industry, may act as a pool of knowledge, enterprise and research and thus be able to give some assistance to other nationalised industries to which that information would not otherwise be available. By that means, comparisons between nationalised industries may be not odious but beneficial. I wish the Select Committee well and hope that it will be of assistance in achieving public accountability to the House in respect of the nationalised industries.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: We are sent here as politicians. It may be an interesting speculation as to why some of us are elected at all, but, speaking for myself, I know that I was not elected to run the National Coal Board. No one would vote for me on those grounds.
I still believe that we are, in a sense, trying to do a job which Parliament is not intended to do. We must rely to a great extent upon the market and upon ordinary commercial practice to ensure that the nationalised industries are efficiently run. Many of them are already subject to the market and it operates upon them.
At the same time, however, we nationalised those industries on the ground that there should be some public responsibility for them, and we have to make the best of the job that we have set ourselves. On those lines, I am prepared —rather reluctantly, I must confess—to support the Motion for the setting up of a Select Committee. I am very attracted by the idea that one might have a series of reports, such as was referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), like the Herbert Report; I think we might well have such reports. Nevertheless, they themselves do not meet the point about public responsibility. They, in turn, have to be considered by Parliament in some way. I do not think they would meet the difficulty that the public expects us to exercise rather more


efficient control over the nationalised industries than we do at present.
I will support the Government's Motion only if it is clearly understood that its usefulness is extremely limited, and that the functions of the Select Committee must be very limited. Further, I do not believe that the Select Committe will have any success unless other reforms are brought about at the same time.
I regard the Select Committee as being concerned primarily—I do not mind if it does so after the event—to examine, in general in the first place, whether a Minister is doing his job. It seems to me that the first person who has to be accountable to the Select Committee is a Minister. We deal with the nationalised industries through a Minister. Suppose we ask the question "Is this industry being well run?" The Select Committee may come to the conclusion that the National Coal Board is not being well run. Our first sanction in that event is to try to sack the the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Callaghan: That will not be done in the Select Committee.

Mr. Grimond: Nevertheless, it is a point which should be borne in mind. Secondarily the Committee can give us some idea as to whether the Nationalised Industries are well run. And that is about all it should attempt.
I was astonished at the list of jobs read out by the Lord Privy Seal as the sort of thing the Select Committe might do. I should have thought that they were nearly all managerial tasks which it would be quite improper for a Parliamentary Committee to dabble in. If the Select Committee is to dabble in such tasks, I cannot see why it should not dabble in matters of wages, which apparently everybody is agreed it should not do.
Further, I do not think that the Select Committee should become a mere pressure group for the retention of redundant branch lines, nor become a forum for the expression of grievances. There are ways of ventilating grievances, and possibly they can be extended. The Select Committee might be given some general part to play in relation to grievances, but we do not want an endless series of pinpricks to various industries being debated by the Select Committee.
I do not think the Select Committee can do anything to determine the policies of the industries in advance. It can merely review what is being done by an individual industry. We must bear in mind that it is no good multiplying committees, Ministers, consumers' councils and so forth, and thinking that merely by multiplying we are doing any good. Look at the situation. We shall have the board, the Minister, the Select Committee, this House, consumers' councils and rent tribunals and so on, all of which the nationalised industry has to try to placate.
I very much hope that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will tell us a little more about how he views the relationship between the Minister and the industries and between the Minister and the Select Committee. In particular, I hope he will say a little more about the powers of the Select Committee to summon before it members of the boards or other officials of the nationalised industries. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East mentioned that, and it is a very important point.
Further, do the Government propose any alterations in respect of the scope of Questions in this House? I should have thought that the mere setting up of the Select Committee would almost inevitably have meant that that matter would have to be reconsidered.
I wonder whether the Government are prepared to say a little more about the expert advice which the Select Committee will have. It was at one time proposed that it should have its own trained, skilled accountancy staff. That is not now the proposal. It is now proposed that it should have Treasury staff. I think that is a very much better arrangement, but I wonder how far the Treasury is briefed on all the aspects of the different nationalised industries. I simply do not know to what extent it is a fair burden to put upon the Treasury.
I think the Select Committee can be useful only in so far as it provides information so that the House can be better informed and can exercise better control over the Minister, the House having only very indirectly any effect upon the Board's policy. The real policy of the nationalised industries must be to get the right men to run them and to give the industries a fair crack of the whip. I do not think


we shall do that unless, at the same time as setting up the Select Committee, we do certain other things.
Everyone who examines these industries agrees that we must pay their Boards much better. We must, surely, get out of the habit of treating the boards as vehicles for general Government policy. An hon. Member has mentioned the subject of "Fly British Aeroplanes". It seems to me quite unfair to put that sort of onus upon the airways and expect them to boost British aircraft at the cost of their own services. Equally, it is unfair to ask the railways to subsidise certain forms of traffic. I have asked for Government assistance for some form of transport in my constituency, but I always thought that it should be borne by the Exchequer and not by the general run of railway passengers.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman include price stabilisation in respect of electricity and gas among the things in which the Government should not interfere?

Mr. Grimond: The Government should interfere as little as possible with the commercial pricing of the industries in their own field. If they want to assist certain classes of consumers, they may do so, but the burden should be carried fairly by the Exchequer and the industry concerned should be compensated.
We must also tackle the question of deficits. I do not think the Select Committee will have much of a chance unless deficits are dealt with. Then I believe that we should have a capital investment board to deal with the needs of all the industries. I do not believe that we should always saddle industries with fixed interest stock upon which they have to meet the interest whatever their commercial success may be.
There, very briefly, are my views on the Motion. I support it with reluctance because I believe it is an attempt to do a job which the House is not equipped to do. I am not at all clear that it is a Parliamentary or political job in essence at all. However, we have taken it on and we must make the best of it.
If we get better information and good reports from the Select Committee, and if it is clearly understood that the main responsibility still rests upon the Minister,

I think the Government's proposal may do good. There is, at any rate, this to be said for it, that it will lead to some discussion about certain industries which at present are never discussed. I have in mind here the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, Cable and Wireless, and the Bank of England. I do not think the Bank of England has ever been discussed. I hope the Select Committee will examine the Bank of England and let us know what it finds out.
As an hon. Member has already said, it may also be valuable to compare practices which have grown up in one industry with those which have grown up in another and thus see whether we can discover something to help all the industries to improve their general efficiency.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I must say that if this horse had a starting price it would be a very long one indeed. I am one of the few hon. Members who benefited from the appointment of the last Committee. I had a bet that it would never do any good
at all, and, ultimately, I drew my handsome reward. I think that this Committee has a little more chance, but the improvement in the odds is very slight.
It is obvious from what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has said that we can look upon this only as an interim proposal. The Committee cannot possibly succeed in doing the task allotted to it. Indeed, I think that we are tackling this problem from the wrong end. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) struck a most pertinent note when he said that these industries cannot all be treated alike. A little later I want to refer to that, because it is important to develop the situation in which we find ourselves largely through trying to treat all the nationalised industries as single entities.
My reason for thinking that a Committee of this kind cannot really function is that I do not believe that we can get sufficient hon. Members, uncommitted, to do the job. We have great difficulty nowadays to man our Public Accounts Committee and our Estimates Committee. To find other hon. Members who are prepared to devote a considerable amount of time—and who have the necessary capacity—is a very considerable


task for the House. Furthermore, it is most important that we should get the right kind of person, because the wrong man can start causing friction and a good deal of trouble which is really quite disproportionate to his own importance. Therefore, the selection of the personnel is one which causes me a great deal of concern.
I certainly do not think that the list of possible activities that my right hon. Friend gave is at all practicable. Immediately one attempted to delve into these realms, one would come into conflict with the management and direction of the organisation. It is difficult to define an area of activity for a body of this kind which would permit the undertaking freely to carry on its activities—as it should be allowed to do—and, at the same time, to achieve a degree of public accountability.
I do not think that we are facing the problem, and although I shall not vote against this proposal today I must necessarily regard it as the merest interim measure. I hope that my right hon. Friends will get down to dealing with the basic problem. As I see it, that problem is this. We are all concerned, certainly, our constituents are concerned, in varying degrees of informed and uninformed interest, with the conduct of the nationalised industries. I am sure that neither side of the House is satisfied with what has been done, and the reason for that dissatisfaction is that we have endeavoured to get from those industries something that they could not give us.
When the party opposite established these corporations they sincerely and genuinely believed that it was possible to get the advantages of private enterprise by establishing some sort of State corporation. They really thought that if one had a private corporation which was divorced, as far as was practical, from the Government, we really could simulate the conditions of private enterprise. That is a fallacy. I suggest that, while we should approve this Motion, we have really to settle for the advantages that the nationalised concerns can give us, and not to try to extract from them the advantages of private enterprise.
I said that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was hitting the nail on the head when he told us that we should not

try to deal with the nationalised industries as if they were all the same. When we come to rethink this problem, I hope that we shall not make the error which we made in the years just after the war. If an industry, even though it be State-owned, is subjected to the stimulus of competition it can be pushed much farther away from Parliamentary control than is the case today. For example, I should like to see B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. taken right out of the reach of my right hon. Friend. I believe that when we have industries like the civil aircraft industries it is quite possible to push the Corporations outside the ambit of State supervision altogether and let them run as commercial corporations. Conversely, if we have industries which are largely monopolistic, and not subjected to competition, the answer is to bring them under Parliamentary control.
I do not, for one moment, accept the proposition that it is impossible to run these industries directly through Parliamentary control. I am quite satisfied that the example of the Post Office could be duplicated in the case of two or three of the existing nationalised industries, with great advantage to the country and to the House. If we are to have a nationalised industry, abolishing competition, do not let us attempt to ape the advantages of competition. Let us rather settle for the advantage that direct Parliamentary control can give us.
I know that some of my hon. Friends believe that there are many objections to this course and prefer this interim Committee rather than to face the problem of dealing with these industries as they should be dealt with. I feel reasonably certain that the time will come when we shall have to abandon these ideas of tinkering with the problem, and get some degree of proper Parliamentary control. One of the obvious difficulties of the men who are running these boards is that there is too much dubiety about the control. There is an immense amount of "buck passing" between Ministers and chairmen of corporations. When it is convenient for one man to "pass the buck" to another he does so. We cannot run an undertaking on the basis that no one is very sure who is really in control.
The result of transferring these undertakings to Parliamentary control would be that there would be clear and un-mistakeable indications of where the responsibility lay. We in this House


would be very much better off. We could tackle the relevant Ministers, and the relevant Ministers could put forward propositions which are, at present, beyond the chairmen of the boards.
Therefore, while I do not object to this Motion now, I feel that the Committee has very little chance of being really successful, because I cannot see how it can work without coming into conflict with the managerial responsibilities of the corporations. Although I shall vote for the Motion, I hope that we shall not try to leave it at this. This is clearly not a suitable solution of this problem.
We have to go much further. We have to realise that mistakes were made in the years after the war, and we have to consider how far we can deal with the nationalised industries, on the basis of pushing them further away from Parliamentary control, in some instances, and of bringing them further into Parliamentary control in others. I hope that the House will support the Motion tonight, but that it will direct its attention to the greater problems ahead.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I very much regret that so little time is being given to this debate this evening, because I understand that those right hon. and hon. Members who are to wind up for the respective sides wish to rise in a few minutes. This means that very few hon. Members will have had an opportunity to participate in this debate on what is a very important subject, as has been made clear from the speeches which have already been delivered.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) expressed new ideas which I feel sure we should all like to debate, but, unfortunately, there is insufficient time. All those who have spoken have indicated that they are not satisfied with the present relationship between the boards and the Ministers, and between the boards and Ministers and this House. The present situation as regards public accountability is far from satisfactory. The question which is before us is whether this proposed Select Committee will provide the answer to the problem. The Opposition's Amendment states that it is not considered that such a Select Committee would be the answer. Those

who have supported and those who have opposed this Motion have expressed doubts as to how the Committee will operate and whether it is possible to have those safeguards which we consider necessary.
I think that one of the reasons why public accountability has not yet been worked out is that the concept of the public corporation at the time of its inception before the war is different from the present concept which we have of the much larger industries which are now nationalised. That is to say, when the first public corporations were established it was intended that they should be, and it was considered that it was possible for them to be, financially independent and autonomous and to have no Ministerial interference whatsoever with them. In fact, in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board the then Tory Government changed the original conception so that even the appointment of the members of the Board should be taken away from the Minister himself and be given to a body of trustees.
Since the war, with the nationalisation of the basic industries, it has been quite rightly accepted that the Minister must play a part in those industries; and not only does the Minister appoint the members of the boards, but in every case there was given to him the reserve power to give directives to those boards if it was considered necessary in the national interest. In addition, the Minister has a very large number of statutory duties with respect to the boards for which, of course, he has to answer to Parliament.
The Minister not only has these statutory responsibilities; he not only appoints the boards and is able to give directives, but he exercises a considerable influence over those boards indirectly and does not report to this House on those actions. It is for that reason that I feel that some increase of accountability to this House is called for. As I say, I do not know whether the Select Committee is the answer or not. Personally, I favour giving the experiment a trial, provided that there are adequate safeguards.
It seems to me, however, that today the Minister exercises considerable influence. He sees the members of the board frequently and he does not give them directions because, unfortunately, in my view, it has become accepted for some reason


or other that if the Minister resorts to giving a directive to the board he is thereby casting a reflection upon the board. The chairmen of the boards resist right up to the point of giving in to the Minister in order to prevent a directive being given.
There are very few cases where a Minister has resorted to using that power, but that does not mean that he does not get his way with the boards, because the chairmen know full well that he can use that power, but they do not want it used because they consider it would be a reflection upon themselves.
Similarly the Minister, including the present Minister, have sometimes interfered with these boards more than is allowed in the statutes which created the boards. I would cite the case of interference with fares, not by the present Minister, but in 1952. Even the present Minister went so far as to over-ride the statutory authority of the Transport Tribunal inasmuch as when it had given its advice to him concerning the increase in fares he laid aside its advice. However, I do not want to raise that controversy now.
I refer to this matter because it seems to me that if the Minister is to have responsibility we must know what responsibility he is taking upon his shoulders, and, also, we must have the right in this House, through some form of procedure or another, to hold the Minister to account. I suggest that the Minister is taking responsibility in private today for which he is not answerable in public. It is for that reason that I feel that this whole question of public accountability has to be explored further, and, if possible, a means found, such as this suggested Committee, to make it possible to hold the Minister fully to account.
I feel, therefore, that this Committee, if it works satisfactorily, which I do not think is impossible, would serve a dual purpose. First, it would have a check upon the Minister. This is what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) suggested. The Minister would be accountable to the House through that Committee for any actions which he might take. No longer would he be able to act in secret and keep from the House the knowledge of the influence that he may exercise over these boards.
The second function is one which was referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), namely, that the boards can use the Committee as a channel to inform Parliament of their policies and plans and the reasons for their actions. Those who served on the Select Committee on nationalised industries which recommended that such a Committee should be set up, subject to certain safeguards, were very impressed with the evidence which was given to us by Lord Hurcomb. Lord Hurcomb pointed out that in his view, if Parliament had been better informed on certain matters concerning the British Transport Commission, Parliament might not have acted, as he considered it did, on misinformation.
In Lord Hurcomb's view, it was not in possession of the full facts, but agreed to certain policies being followed by the Government which he considered to be wrong policies and on which he did not think Parliament was sufficiently informed.

Mr. Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Davies: I cannot give way, for I have only a few minutes left. There is a great deal which I could say, but my time is very limited.
Some of the difficulties which have been referred to today have been exaggerated. I do not know that looking over one's shoulder, as long as it is limited and is controlled, is such a great danger. Everybody is held in check. Everybody has his responsibilities and has to answer to somebody else for his actions. At least, he should have to answer. If a Committee like this functions, if the board chairmen appear before it and the members of the board and the staff are aware that there is such a Committee, and that what they do may later be questioned by the Committee, I do not believe that they will act less responsibly or with more fear and less initiative and enterprise.
After all, the whole of the Civil Service is answerable to this House, and I do not know that our Civil Service is so lacking in initiative and enterprise as all that. Indeed, it is reputed to be the best Civil Service in the world. We must not get the idea that it is wrong to hold these people to account and to have some check upon them; but it does depend


upon the manner in which the Committee exercises its functions. It depends upon the Committee itself acting responsibly and not interfering in matters which it knows will put a brake on initiative or enterprise, that is to say, not interfering in the day-to-day affairs of management and the like.
As to the other fear expressed, of its being a political party body, as it were, for muck-raking, that danger, of course, exists in all Parliamentary Committees. But I, like other hon. Members, have served on the Select Committee on Estimates, and I think all who have served on that Committee and its subcommittees have been impressed by the responsible manner in which hon. Members do their work and how, as a rule, they approach matters which come before them in an objective manner. There is objective examination of the Estimates which
come before the Committee and of the matters which it decides to discuss. Its business is not always approached in a party sense, and I do not see any reason why the same thing should not be possible in this case.
If this Committee is set up, as, presumably, it will be, it can prove helpful rather than a hindrance, if the members of it approach their task not with a view to being critical and finding fault and looking at the boards as the enemy, as it were, but in a constructive and helpful fashion. They must endeavour to help along the nationalised industries, helping them to explain themselves to us, and enabling the Minister also to explain his action to the Committee and, through it, to the House.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I feel bound to add mine to the voices which have been raised in this debate to say how sorry we are that it should have been necessary to confine our discussion within so short a time. I very much regret that the remarks of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and, certainly, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) have had to be cut short because of lack of time.
The question before us is one of very great importance, not only to those who work in the industry but to this House

and the nation as a whole. The subject of Parliamentary accountability is one to which a great deal of thought has been given, and I am sure that we have not yet arrived at hard and fast conclusions upon it. Today, in my view quite rightly, this debate has not had any of the character of a party debate.
I was a member of the so-called Lord Clitheroe Committee, and I agreed with both the Reports of that Committee. I did so because I recognised that there is a clear inadequacy in the examination of the nationalised industries by this House. Most of us here who are interested in the nationalised industries, and many who are not, have participated in the debates. I am sure that we have all read them.
When one reads the debates upon the nationalised industries, one is always struck by the fact that so much of the time which Parliament devotes to the examination, or supposed examination, of these industries is devoted to trifling questions, often to minor, unimportant constituency points; the debates range much too widely over the whole field instead of being confined to an attempt to pinpoint, at specific times, some aspect of nationalised industry. The time available in Parliament to debate this matter is inadequate, and the information that we get is too little and too late.
Further, I must say—and here I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East—that I am not really scared by the idea of managers always having to look over their shoulders at what Parliament or somebody might be saying about them. We are in danger of overemphasising this point. I do not think it is a bad thing that people should from time to time have to look over their shoulders at somebody else. It is good that Members of Parliament should from time to time have to look over their shoulders at their constituents and pay attention to what they are saying. It does not necessarily follow that one always accepts what one thinks, they are saying, but it is a good thing that this state of things should exist and that we should have to look over our shoulders at the electors.
I do not consider that it is, or would be, a bad thing for the Boards and chairmen of nationalised industries to be


looking over their shoulders at Parliament and paying attention to what Members of Parliament are thinking. After all, we represent the people in this matter. The heads of these thousand million pound undertakings must be a poor lot if they are unable to explain to a few Members of Parliament what they are up to and what they are actually in process of doing. Frankly, I do not very much fear the possibility of these people having from time to time to explain their actions to a group of parliamentarians. That is why I supported the initial Reports of the Select Committee which was set up under Lord Clitheroe.
Having said that, I am bound to go on and say that I should never have been a party to those Reports, and would never have permitted them to go through by unanimous decision, if the terms of reference for the suggested Select Committee had not been clearly defined and if we had not clearly set out the terms of reference under which the committee would have to work. The Clitheroe Committee sat for two years, carefully examining this problem. It had before it the most important people in these industries. It had before it points of view expressed by civil servants, important trade unionists and others. As a result of its hearings and deliberations, it arrived at a unanimous conclusion. However, as I say, that conclusion could have been unanimous provided only that certain matters were excluded.
There is a vast difference between the way in which the Clitheroe Committee looked at this great problem and the way in which the Committee set up in 1955 approached its task. I believe, with the Lord Privy Seal today, that the Committee set up in 1955 made no real attempt to explore the possibilities open to it. Its whole approach to the problems facing it appeared to me to be negative, and not positive. I believe that it could have done much. It ought to have tried very much more than it did. It certainly ought not to have left its examination to four meetings and to have had before it people who were not in the nationalised industries at all, but to others, such as the Attorney-General and people in the Ministries.
It made up its mind straight way, as it seems to me, that its terms of reference

were too restrictive, and it started out from that point. I believe that it made a tremendous mistake in doing that. It ought, at least, to have gone over some of the possible aspects and to have faced the matter with a more positive approach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) said that the Committee could not ask questions within the terms of reference. I frankly do not believe that it tried hard enough.
If it was not possible for that Committee to ask questions within the terms of reference as clearly laid down, how will it be possible for this Committee to work, if it is to be limited in the gentlemanly manner suggested by the Lord Privy Seal and have in mind precisely the same ideas as were embodied in the other terms of reference, with restrictions placed upon it by a sort of "gentlemen's agreement", leaving it to the honour of the Committee to avoid those matters which were set out in the last terms of reference?
It is a fact, and it is inevitable that it should be, that quite often, despite that kind of idea, party passions rise above some undefined sense of Tightness. That is understandable. This is a political institution and everything here tends to turn into party matters with only the rarest of exceptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East, who was for a time a member of the Select Committee, said that his experience was that party considerations did not, as a rule, enter into the examinations undertaken by the Committee. I, too, sat upon that Committee for five years and I must say that it was very rare for that to happen. I remember occasions when an attempt was made to arrive at decisions based upon party considerations, and I remember some of the fights in that connection.
This is, as I say, a political institution. Nationalised industry cannot be cut out from this play of party, one side against the other, neither can it be removed from the conflict between Socialism and capitalism, the two points of view which are clearly held on the opposing sides of the House. No matter how one regards nationalisation, it is still part of this great conflict. There is still too sharp a conflict of opinion as to the Tightness of nationalisation or otherwise. I was hoping that by this time we might have got away


from it, but, quite obviously, the decisions taken by the Government after they came into power threw it back straight away into the field of party conflict.
There is still much too sharp a conflict of opinion as to the proper outcome of trade union negotiations between the two sides. That, too, is inevitable. Here arises another aspect. The relationship of the trade unions to the nationalised industries is in process of being worked out. It is bound to be a somewhat protracted process. It is one in which the trade unions themselves will have to accept a new relationship to their industry. I believe that they are coming to recognise this as a fact, but it is not an easy process. It involves the recognition of a partial change of function to one which is rather different from the old trade union concept of "Our job is to fight the boss now and always." It must be something more than that in nationalised industry.
If this change of function, even if it is recognised in the unions at the top, is eventually to become what we hope it will be, it must permeate the whole of the unions concerned, from the president down to the ordinary member of the branch who attends on Sunday, or whatever day it may be, and participates in the trade union work at that level. It is easy for us here to see what ought to be happening in relation to trade unions and nationalised industry. It is rather different when looking at it through, say, a signal box window, or on the floor of a trade union branch. These matters
must be approached warily in this House and by its Committees. We must avoid doing anything which would interfere with what must be a gradual process.
It is because of the fact, and because of my fear, that a Select Committee without specific terms of reference would be quite unable to avoid the matter of trade union negotiations, and the outcome from them, that I am opposed to the idea of a Select Committee in its suggested form. In our Amendment, we on this side say that we are not satisfied with the present position. We have said that it is a matter requiring examination.
I shall vote happily tonight, despite the fact that I sat with the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South on the Clitheroe Committee, against the Motion, because we ought not to try this

experiment without at least having terms of reference which will govern the conduct of the members and of its chairman in its task of examining these great industries which are now the nation's.

6.35 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I, too, am sorry that we have had such a short debate, because this is a vitally important subject and I know that there were many other hon. Members who would like to have spoken had they seen any opportunity of doing so. Those who have spoken have contributed very much to the debate.
I think it would be fair to use again the words of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and say that it is extraordinarily difficult to find the right relationship between this House and the nationalised industries. Probably we all agree on that. As many hon. Members have said this evening, however, the conception of the nationalised industries themselves is changing. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) when he says that nationalised industries are not slowly moving out of politics. I think that they are.

Mr. Champion: I did not say they were not moving out of politics. I said that they were not yet clear of party politics. I think that they will become so eventually.

Mr. Watkinson: That should be an objective. While we must differ in our political views on nationalised industries, most of us, I think, agree that too much controversy, particularly ill-judged controversy, does not help the chairman of a nationalised industry or those who work with him to do their job. In my view, that is certainly not an argument that we in this House should, therefore, throw up our hands and say, "We must do the best we can. We in this House must try to find what time we can. We must have a few more Questions if we can get them in," and so on.
My reason for quarrelling with the Opposition Amendment is that no constructive alternative is put forward. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) rightly said that the Opposition is still in process of producing its views and thoughts on the


whole range of nationalised industry, and that I accept. For the moment, however, there seems to be no alternative to the proposition which my right hon. Friend as put before the House, that we should try again to see whether we can make a success of the Select Committee.
I never find that hesitancy is one of the features of the hon. Member—usually, in fact, the very reverse is the case—but I thought that he was a little hesitant about this matter today. He admitted that we could learn by experience and I think that we have learnt something by experience with the first Select Committee. What we have learnt—and in this I certainly differ from those who have spoken from the Opposition benches—is that if we try to tie down that kind of Committee, particularly when it is feeling its way, with rigid terms of reference, we will find that it cannot, and will not, work. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) made that point forcefully. We think, therefore, that it is right to experiment again and to do it clearly in the knowledge, as my right hon. Friend said, that this is an experiment which may fail but one which we sincerely hope will succeed.
It is a little underestimating the capacity of members of Select Committees of this House to associate them with a bear garden or a place which would be used for muck-raking. They are both very picturesque and, no doubt, quite proper terms, but I do not think that Select Committees of this House have usually been distinguished for conduct of that kind. Therefore, I do not think we are wrong to run the risk, if it is a risk, of a Committee of that kind conducting itself in a way that would not help the nationalised industries.
If we try to get down to the facts, I think that everyone in the House wants to have proper Parliamentary control of the nationalised industries. Everybody says that, on the whole, they should be made more accountable and not less accountable. The question I would then put to the House is: can we have adequate Parliamentary control unless we have an adequate knowledge of the facts? That seems to be one of the main tasks the Select Committee should perform, and it could render the House a great

service by sifting and winnowing the facts and in presenting them to the House in a digestive form.
Most of us suffer from having far too much to read, and I believe that the Select Committee, by predigesting some of the vast amount of information now lying fallow in the nationalised industries, would be doing a great service to the country, to them, and to every hon. Member of the House. I make no apology at all for saying that I think we should be very wrong if we did not appoint again a Select Committee to examine, as our Motion says,
'the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries

Sir Leslie Plummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman include among the nationalised industries the British Broadcasting Corporation? Clearly not, although the greater part of its
revenues are not provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer. However, he would, I suppose, include the I.T.A., which is a trading concern, whose members are appointed by a Minister, and the greater part of whose receipts do not come from either Parliament or the Exchequer. Does that not mean that the Select Committee will be inquiring into the workings of a nationalised trading orgnisation, the I.T.A., and not into those of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a fascinating idea, but one hardly relevant to the Motion.

Mr. Callaghan: Oh, but it is. What will prevent the Select Committee from doing so?

Mr. Watkinson: Merely the fact, as I understand, that it will not be charged with the duty of inquiring into them.

Mr. Callaghan: It is rather important to know what the Select Committee is to be empowered to inquire into. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the I.T.A. is a body which is appointed by a Minister and has receipts from public funds, though not the greater part of its receipts. What, therefore, is there to preclude the Select Committee, if it so desires, from inquiry into the affairs of the I.T.A.?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not going to be led away into fascinating spheres of that kind. I know the hon. Gentleman's great


and able interest in those spheres of public entertainment, but I want to deal with the questions he raised in his speech.
I was just coming to one he raised about B.O.A.C It is a good example. Here is a matter of vital concern not only to the Corporation but to the whole country. The hon. Gentleman asked about the general procurement policy of both that Corporation and B.E.A.C., and, indeed, of the independent companies, too. There is no doubt at all that we should have benefited in the day's debate we had recently on the affairs of those Corporations, had we had before us a report of a Select Committee which had been able to give the time we certainly could not give in so short a time, to examining the most technical and difficult problem of the right kind of aircraft for the Corporations. That, in my view, is one of the urgent arguments for appointing the Select Committee.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, asked how the Select Committee will deal with the relationship between the chairman of the board of a nationalised industry and the Minister responsible to the House for the industry. I would remind the House of what I said on a recent occasion, because my views are quite clear and definite on the relationship between the Minister responsible to this House and the chairmen of the boards of the industries for which I am responsible. I said:
In my view, the chain of command is that I am responsible to the House and the Chairman is responsible to me. But, of course, before coming to me he discusses, clears and brings to me the collective decision of the Board. I believe that it would be absolutely wrong for any Minister to deal other than through the Chairman, who must be directly and solely responsible to the Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1215.]
I would add to that only, "the Minister directly and solely responsible to this House."
I must make it plain that I do not think that any Select Committee or a committee of any kind can stand between the Minister and that relationship. If it does, the Minister has no further function to perform to this House or anyone else. I must make that perfectly plain, because I think that that is essential. However, I

do not think this presents any difficulty, because that position is clearly known, and this is a very flexible relationship.
I do not see that it presents any difficulty to the Select Committee, which may, quite properly, want to examine and question either the chairman of the board himself or officers who may be nominated by the chairman to deal with certain specific points into which the Committee is inquiring. I do not see any great difficulty there.

Mr. Callaghan: In other words, if the chairman of the Select Committee asks to see a representative of one of the nationalised industries it would be for the chairman of the board of that industry to determine who should appear before the Committee, whether it should be he himself or another member of the board or one of his officers?

Mr. Watkinson: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has put very clearly exactly the view I take. The view which I believe the Select Committee will take is that it is pari passu with direct personal responsibility to the chairman and the Minister.
Many Members have said that one of the difficulties is that the Select Committee will get involved in day-to-day matters. For example, there may be some most difficult wage negotiations going on, or, as the hon. Gentleman said, there may be the difficult problem as to what kind of aircraft the Corporations should buy, or the problem of what kind of modernisation should be carried out. My own view is that it would make the position of the Minister quite impossible if the Select Committee were to try to pronounce on those matters, when the Minister, at the same time, is trying to examine them with the chairman of the board. However, that is fully safeguarded against in our Motion by the words
to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries.
And for this reason. I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, they are never less than about 12 months in arrear.
That is the safeguard, for the Select Committee is bound, in my view, to base its proceedings upon the last year's business. Therefore, while it can, quite properly, as my right hon. Friend said, ask to be brought up to date about certain things it is examining, it must base its


main proceedings and findings on the current reports and accounts, which will certainly be about 12 months in arrear, sometimes more.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely the Minister is taking a view different from that of the Lord Privy Seal? The matters which the Lord Privy Seal put forward as examples of matters which would be considered by the Select Committee were matters which, quite clearly, were for the future, such as future financing and revenue, and so forth.

Mr. Watkinson: I am just coming to that. It is a very important point. It is one which my right hon. Friend and I have discussed.
To come to the reports and accounts. Let me take the three bodies for which I am responsible because they are most familiar to me. Suppose the Select Committee were discussing the British Transport Commission. As the House knows, it is the largest employer in the country. It is a massive business. In almost every line of its Report there is material for investigation that ought to be investigated in the interests of the House and of the Commission and of the country. There is not time to delve into it all very deeply, so let me take two short examples.
There is a small one about the 10-year programme for the modernisation of certain Commission-owned hotels having been approved in principle. There is a great deal of money involved in that, and very interesting tourist problems and a great many other things. If the Select Committee decided to examine that aspect of the industry's work it would be perfectly proper for it to ask how policy had developed since the Report was written. I see no conflict in that. The Committee would be basing itself quite properly on the Report, but would be asking to be brought up to date as far as could be so that the examination would be topical.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: That is done now without a Select Committee.

Mr. Watkinson: It may be, but I do not take the view of those who think that the work of the nationalised industries is adequately reflected in the House either at Question Time or in debate. Certainly,

there is a very short day to cover the whole of the work of the Airways Corporations.
Another example is found in the Report of B.O.A.C. where there is a paragraph headed "Co-operation with British Independent Companies". There, again, there is a possibility of a wide-ranging examination which might have the utmost effect.

Mr. F. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman said a little earlier that we should not get involved in day-to-day business. I see no value at all, interesting as it might be, in all this historical research unless it is related to future policies.

Mr. Watkinson: There is a good answer to that. I said, I think before the hon. Member came into the Chamber, that my view of the duty of the Select Committee was that it should provide for the House relevant facts, perhaps in digested form, so that when the House came to discuss the matters it had a background of factual, detailed, examination on which to base discussions in the limited time that we have available in the House. I am indicating how the Select Committee could quite properly base itself on the annual reports and accounts and yet be reasonably up-to-date in its consideration of matters of great import and interest.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Committee would be justified in making comments on the present development of some proposals which were based on a report for the previous year?

Mr. Watkinson: That is covered by my previous remarks about the relationship between the Minister and his chairman, and the Minister and the House. The Leader of the Liberal Party proposed that this Select Committee should be a kind of Star Chamber that would invigilate the Minister and haul him before it as it thought necessary. I do not take that view. If a Minister is to be hauled up and invigilated it should be by the House in this Chamber and not by remote control through a Select Committee.
This is a difficult problem, but I think that there is a way through. We would have the Committee properly examining the reports and accounts and examining


an enormously wide field which the nationalised industries represent. The Committee would be obtaining all the facts that the House might want and yet not getting to the point where it would get between the Minister and the chairman or directly between the Minister and the House, which, as far as I am concerned, as a Minister, would, I think, be completely impracticable and unworkable.

Mr. Strauss: We want to have this clear, because it is very important. There is confusion in the minds of many of us as a result of speeches made previously and the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Is it, in the Minister's view, the right function of the Committee to consider affairs which are happening currently, which have developed, it may be, from something that happened in the previous year, and then make about those affairs any critical or laudatory comment whatsoever, or should it all be purely factual?

Mr. Watkinson: Absolutely factual. The Committee's duty is to base itself on the current reports and accounts which, as I have said, would never be less than about 12 months in arrear, and to inform itself as far as it can on the reports and accounts. It is quite proper for the Committee to ask for further information, which, of course, must be more modern information, but that must be factual information and must not conflict with the proper relationship between the Minister and the chairman. That is something for which the Select Committee must try to find a workable solution.
We have seen in this interesting debate how, if we try to set things out in black and white, we will fail. We must leave it to the good sense and good will of the Committee to try to work out its own principles and rules as it goes along. After all, this House has got along very well through the years without a written constitution, and by making its own rules very largely as it goes along. Therefore, we have a very respectable precedent for this Select Committee, which I hope will start before long on its very difficult and responsible tasks.
I carry that argument forward to the subject of wage negotiations, which I think worries one or two hon. Members, and in which the trade unions are

naturally deeply interested. If we maintain the principle which I have enunciated that the Select Committee must base itself on the annual report, as the Motion states, that rules it out, obviously, from any discussion of current wage negotiations. Also, I am quite sure that it is the general tradition of the House, which even in my short time here I have seen observed many times, that we in the House do not interfere in industrial negotiations, nor do we try to discuss them at great length when they are taking place. I feel sure, therefore, that the Select Committee will adopt the same procedure and, as my right hon. Friend has said, with his wise and great experience, he would rule out of order a question which bore upon current wage and industrial negotiations.
I think that my right hon. Friend is quite right, but I equally think, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has said, that it is not wrong that a nationalised industry should have somebody looking over its shoulder, because ordinary business has its shareholders who have many ways of looking over the shoulders of large industrial concerns. I would welcome, and I am sure that the nationalised industries would welcome, some reasonable form not so much of investigation as of a forum in which the industries could make plain some of the many facts that concern their great businesses.
I do not believe that this conception is one that is unwelcome to the nationalised industries. I believe that they would welcome a forum of this kind where they could discuss and explain facts concerning their businesses in a way which it is quite impossible to do in the House. There is already a tradition for members of nationalised industries sometimes to talk to private party committees upstairs, and it does not seem to me very different, on the whole, for members of nationalised industries to talk to a Select Committee in a way that would do nothing but good to their industries and their relationship to the country and its customs.
I sum up by saying that this is not the first experiment that we have carried out in the House where we have had to try to find our way and make our rules and procedure as we have gone forward. We


should be quite wrong to take the Opposition view and say that because we cannot think out anything better we do nothing at all. Indeed, there have been speeches from the Opposition benches this evening which have indicated that this Select Committee might not be a bad thing. If it is set up—and I am not sure that it is not the real sense of the House that we ought to have a body of this kind—it will be an experiment. As my right hon. Friend has said, it might well fail, but I think that we should try it.
I have no doubt that we shall maintain the democratic decencies by dividing on the Motion this evening, but, having done that, I hope that all hon. Members will

try to play their part in making the Select Committee work. I believe that it has a useful part to play. If the experiment succeeds, we shall have done something to help the nationalised industries and, indeed, the Ministers responsible for them. I therefore commend this Motion to the House, and I hope sincerely that, if the Select Committee is set up, the House will do its best to succeed in an experiment that will not be without significance to the future of our industrial democracy.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 225.

Division No. 12.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Aitken, W. T.
Crouch, R. F.
Hay, John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Alport, C. J. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cunningham, Knox
Henderson, John (Catheart)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Currie, G. B. H.
Hesketh, R. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Dance, J. C. G.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Armstrong, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Ashton, N.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Atkins, H. E.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldwin, A. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Balniel, Lord
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hornby, R. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Drayson, G. B
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Barter, John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. sir T. (Richmond)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, John (Test)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hughes, Hallett Vice-Admiral J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, A. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hutchison, SirlanClark (E'b'gh, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hyde, Montgomery


Black, C. W.
Fell, A.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Body, R. F.
Finlay, Graeme
Iremonger, T. L.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Fort, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Braine, B. R.
Freeth, D. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gibson-Watt, D.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Brooman-White, R. C.
Glover, D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Godber, J. B.
Kaberry, D.


Bryan, P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Keegan, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gough, C. F H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gower, H. R.
Kershaw, J. A.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kimball, M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kirk, P. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Green, A.
Lagden, G. W.


Carr, Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimond, J
Lambton, Viscount


Channon, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Leather, E. H. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Leavey, J. A.


Cole, Norman
Gurden, Harold
Leburn, W. G.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersteld)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)





Llewellyn, D. T.
Nicholls, Harmar
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Longden, Gilbert
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, E.)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Lucas, SirJocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lucas, P. B.(Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Storey, S.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McAdden, S. J.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Osborne, C.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Page, R. G.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Teeling, W.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Partridge, E.
Temple, J. M.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Powell, J. Enoch
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maitland. Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ramsden, J. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Redmayne, M.
Wade, D. W.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Marples, A. E.
Renton, D. L. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Marshall, Douglas
Ridsdale, J. E.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Rlppon, A. G. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watkinson, R. Hon. Harold


Mawby, R. L.
Roper, Sir Harold
Webbe, Sir H.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Whitelaw. W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Sharples, R. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Shepherd, William
Wood, Hon. R.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)



Nabarro, G. D. N.
Soames, Capt. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nairn, D. L. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Neave, Alrty
Speir, R. M.
Mr. Barber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Albu, A. H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, J. D.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, W. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hannan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hastings, S.


Baird, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hayman, F. H.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Healey, Denis


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Deer, G.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Delargy, H. J.
Hobson, C. R.


Benson, G.
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P.


Beswick, F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Houghton, Douglas


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Blackburn, F.
Dye, S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Edelman, M.
Hubbard, T. F.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, W J. (Stepney)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fienburgh, W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Burke, W. A.
Finch, H. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Eric
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Hoibn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Forman, J. C.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Carmichael, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Chapman, W. D.
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kenyon, C.


Clunie J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Coldrick, W.
Grey, C. F.
King, Dr. H. M.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lawson, G. M.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Ledger, R. J.




Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on. Trot, C.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lewis, Arthur
Paton, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


MacColl, J. E.
Pentland, N.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McGhee, H. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, E.


McInnes, J.
Poppiewell, E.
Timmons, J.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T.
Tomney, F.


McLeavy, Frank
Pryde, D. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


Manon, Simon
Randall, H. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Watkins, T. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Redhead, E. C.
Weitzman, D.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reeves, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Reid, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mason, Roy
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
West, D. G.


Mayhew, C. P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mellish, R. d.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Messer, Sir F.
Ross, William
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mikardo, Ian
Royle, C.
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, E. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Willey, Frederick


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, David (Neath)


Moss, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Moyle, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mulley, F. W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Neat, Harold (Bolsover)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Snow, J. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oram, A. E.
Sorenson, R. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Orbach, M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woodburn, R. Hon. A.


Oswald, T.
Sparks, J. A.
Woof, R. E.


Owen, W. J.
Steele, T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Paget, R. T.
Stones, W. (Consett)



Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Palmer, A. M. F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the

Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (PRESCRIPTION CHARGES)

7.12 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Hospital Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations, 1956 (S.I., 1956. No. 1744), dated 7th November, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be annulled.
We are tonight praying against six Statutory Instruments, all of which embody the same principle. I would remind the House that the six Statutory Instruments come into operation next Saturday, 1st December. They will affect thousands of people in the towns and villages of Britain. Tonight we shall hear contributions from both sides of the House, and I believe that they will reveal that the Regulations are unjust, and, indeed, inhuman.

Mr. Speaker: For the clarification of business, I take it that the right hon. Lady is proposing that on the first Prayer there shall be a discussion covering all the Prayers, and that we shall then divide as we may be advised later.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the same principle is embodied in all the Regulations, I thought that would be the best method.
As the Regulations will come into operation on Saturday, and as the imposition of the tax will be felt particularly during the winter months, I ask the Minister to be receptive to our speeches and not have a closed mind. I urge him even at this eleventh hour to reconsider the introduction of the Regulations. What is proposed? It is, in effect, the imposition of a discriminatory tax upon the sick and the infirm, those who, far from deserving any extra—

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way for just one moment? Will she draw to the attention of the Minister responsible the fact that there is no one from the Treasury upon the Government Front Bench and that on the Government benches there are only about seven hon. Members? Yet the subject which we are debating is a matter of fundamental importance to millions of people in Britain at the present time.

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. Friend that that is not unusual when domestic problems are debated in the House.
I would emphasise that the Government proposals represent a discriminatory tax on the sick and infirm. These people, far from deserving any extra burden, should surely evoke our sympathy and compassion. When I say "tax", surely the Minister will agree that that is a not inaccurate description. He will recall that only last week I asked him why he had not sought the advice of the medical world. By "medical world", I include pharmacists. His answer was that this was a budgetary matter and that precluded him from seeking advice. Therefore, this is a tax which has been imposed in an arbitrary manner completely divorced from social and medical considerations, because those people who could have given the advice which I believe a Minister should seek before he takes a serious step like this were completely ignored.
I watch the Minister when he speaks at the Dispatch Box and listen to every answer he gives to Questions, and I am always conscious of the fact that he has the honour and privilege of presiding over a great welfare service and that he is personally charged to protect and care for the sick and disabled. Yet he has allowed these people to be singled out for this harsh tax. I say that he has betrayed his trust.
I am well aware that this matter must have come before the Cabinet. I know precisely the procedure in a Department when action of this kind has to be taken. Consequently, I say that this only goes to show once more how utterly remote are the lives of the sick and poor from the minds of the Conservative Cabinet. I doubt whether it occurred to one man in the Conservative Cabinet to ask how the chronic sick would fare under these Regulations.
I would also say—I hope my hon. Friends will not think that I am on this occasion praising my own profession overmuch—that it is a tribute to the medical profession that it has made an immediate and widespread protest. It knows that a health service has failed if it cannot dispense humanity. In my opinion, that is surely the first policy for which one should look in a health service.
I now intend to quote from some of the pronouncements which have been made by the professional organisations in order to show the House that the opposition to the Government's proposals is certainly not limited to the Labour Party. Both town and country doctors—who, in my experience, very rarely support my party—have come forward as champions of the sick against the Minister. We all appreciate that the family doctor and the chemist are near to the heart of the family; they know the circumstances of the family and the little contrivances to which the poor patient has to resort to make both ends meet. These people have strongly criticised the Minister. We must ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has failed to seek their advice.
Let me remind him of what the British Medical Association said last week at a Press conference. It said that the new charges were "financial sanctions on sickness". That is very strong language for the British Medical Association. It also said:
Chronic cases of diabetes, heart disease, asthma, epilepsy, ulcers and anaemia would be taxed unfairly for their illnesses.
It said that this would mean that the man bringing up a large family on a small wage would be put into a new tax class.
It also said that:
… the family of four children might cost as much as £1 a week on prescriptions during ordinary epidemic illnesses.
It said:
One effect of the raised charges might be greater self-medication, which could be a menace to the patient.
All hon. Members know the meaning of self-medication as it was practised in the old days before the National Health Service.
The British Medical Association also said:
… there were two essential items on a prescription and the patient had only one shilling, then the chemist might have to decide which to give. This would be a dangerous state of partial prescription.
Then it said something about composite packs of medical supplies which the Minister said he proposed to introduce to save a shilling or two. It said that this was not the perfect answer and might create wastage. A further

result could well be a tendency to over-prescribe, which might result in waste and more expense to the Service than ever before.
Let us examine this. Of course, it is quite right. These are the views of people who are literally on the job and who know how these suggestions which the Minister has made work out. It may be that a patient will need only one or two dressings and that if the Minister allows composite packs of four dressings there will be wastage. If I may dare to include you, Mr. Speaker, there is not an hon. Member present who has not in his household a little half bottle of tablets, powders, liniments, or lotions which have been wasted. I was astonished when the Minister told the House last week that he would give doctors permission to over-prescribe. Already there is a wastage which shocks us all but which it is difficult to prevent.
The Minister mentioned a period of three months. Does he not realise that in most little homes there is no such thing as a locked cupboard in which to keep tablets? If a doctor prescribes tablets for three months for a patient, it is dangerous to the whole family. Yet these are the contrivances to which the Minister is having to resort to get out of an exceedingly difficult position.
I want to quote The Lancet, which is a well known and respected medical paper. It said this decision:
… will be welcomed by neither patient nor doctor … given that some further reduction in national spending is required, it is by no means clear why this should be made by the sick consumer rather than the healthy consumer. … More of this new levy will be paid by the average woman than the average man … the average aged person will pay about half as much again as the younger person … will bear more heavily on the family man than the individual wage earner.
As such, it contradicts every measure of social policy by discriminating against dependants. In other words, it points out to the Minister that for the first time in the history of the welfare State children are to be taxed, and sick children at that.
Now I come to the chemist. As far as my experience goes, chemists do not necessarily support the Labour Party. The Secretary of the National Pharmaceutical Union expressed the opinion that the new charges may very well seriously interfere with the pharmacists' relationship with


the medical profession and the public at large. May I explain to the Minister what that means? In a poor district, when a patient goes for a prescription with two or three items on it and does not have two or three shillings, he will ask the chemist, whom he has probably known for many years, which is the most important. He will ask, "Which do you think I should have and which do you think I should leave out?" The chemist will be put into a very difficult unprofessional position.
The chemist may have known the man, woman or child concerned for many years and may also know the doctor down the road. What is he to do? Is he to superimpose his advice on that of the doctor down the road, or allow the individual to go without his medicine? If he says, "Take this, but not that" the doctor will immediately know. Quite understandably, the relationship between the doctor and chemist will not be as happy as it should be. The pharmacists say that this will make their position with their customers very difficult. Certainly if a pharmacist refuses to do that the customer may well go to another chemist who might be prepared to do as he asks. That is how the scheme will work and those are the things which the Minister would have learned had he sought advice in time.
The letter published in The Times from the director of a pharmaceutical firm should be very carefully borne in mind by all of us. This is the tragic position which he described:
A careful survey of the 'multiple' prescriptions"—
those are the prescriptions which have more than one item—
proves that these are for diabetic, cancer, colostomy, and epileptic patients, in that order.
He has analysed them and found that those are the people. Colostomy is an operation often performed for those people who have cancer of the lower bowel—some of the most tragic patients in the whole country.
I want to emphasise this point. The director of this firm has analysed prescriptions and shown that those are the people who will suffer in that order. He said:
To adopt a system which makes these patients pay nearly the whole of the proposed additional levy is indefensible. It reverses

the whole theory of health insurance and could be likened to a fire insurance company charging the insurer when he has a fire.
Surely, in view of those considered opinions, the Minister should, at this eleventh hour, reconsider the policy.
He is no doubt about to try to save the situation by telling the House that patients in need may have help from the National Assistance Board. I will not give my views, but I will quote Mr. Davies, the acting-chairman of the General Medical Services Committee, representing 20,000 general practitioners in the Health Service. When he read that the Chancellor and the Minister had said that these people would be able to resort to the National Assistance Board, he said:
But there is still a hard core of people in this country who retain the pride and self-respect that they always had. Many of them would rather suffer or deny themselves treatment than seek public assistance.
A doctor with a practice in Lincolnshire said
the new measure imposed impossible conditions on rural general practitioners who had to collect the money for their prescriptions to patients. I do not think that it will lead to economy if our country doctors are put into the position of tax collectors.
Had the Minister forgotten that? Had he forgotten that doctors in rural areas are far away from chemists and that it is therefore a hardship for people to have to go to the towns to get their medicine dispensed and so doctors in rural areas are generally asked not only to dispense the mixture, but also to take the money from the patient? Just think of the agricultural labourer with a small family going to his doctor, the doctor prescribing for him and then having to have a little wrangle over a few shillings which the doctor had to collect.
In an attempt to reassure the House, the Chancellor and the Minister have said that those who cannot afford these charges will be reimbursed. We want to know on what basis. The Minister has left that a little vague. How have the sick people been reassured? Has the Minister seen the link which has been distributed, the link between himself and the colostomies and the epileptics and the diabetics, the link distributed this week? Was he responsible for it? Has he read it? During the last two days this has been distributed to the doctors of the


country to put up in their surgeries. It is the most astonishing exhibit that I have ever seen in my life. Has the Minister realised that some item of elastic hosiery has been mentioned 14 times in it? Anybody coming to this country from another planet or another country would think that every individual here wore elastic stockings.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): indicated assent.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister agrees. Has he read this? It is a most remarkable thing. That is the only link the Minister has between himself and this tragic little army which I have described who crowd the waiting rooms of doctors all over England, Wales and Scotland. This is what the sick person in the waiting room is given to look at. This is what the diabetics, cancers, colostomies, epileptics and heart diseases have to read.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Read it.

Dr. Summerskill: After mentioning elastic stockings about 14 times it simply says:
The National Assistance Board is authorised to assist anyone who can show that his resources are insufficient to meet these charges.
Just think of the people I have mentioned. The National Assistance Board office is not necessarily next door to the doctor's surgery. People suffering from the diseases which I have mentioned have to go to the Assistance Board either on foot or in the crowded transport of today, which we are told will very shortly be more crowded, and then, with the awful depression of a fatal disease upon them—and this is not an exaggeration—explain their circumstances to the Board's officers and ask whether they qualify for reimbursement. Surely the Minister cannot impose this upon the country.
No doubt my hon. Friends will address themselves more fully to this aspect of the case, but I want to ask the Minister not only why he has taxed the chronic sick in order to obtain his £5 million, but why he has ignored another source of income. Why has he ignored another aspect of the drug bill which I have brought to his attention upon other occasions? He has agreed that what I say is right, namely, that there has been

an over-prescribing of proprietary drugs, and he has given an undertaking that he will make inquiries. As far as I can see he has done nothing. I want to bring this to his notice and tell him that here is a source of his £5 million if he likes to be bold and courageous enough to tackle it.
The cost of drugs is certainly high, and in my opinion this can be attributed to three main causes. First, the cost has risen with everything else. Secondly, the introduction of new and expensive drugs has also raised the drug bill. But the third and most important cause is the increased proportion of proprietary drugs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad that some hon. Members understand the technique of the business.
The proportion of proprietary drugs to all drug preparations is constantly rising, and now stands at 36 per cent. of the drug bill. What is the Minister doing about this? From time to time he sends doctors the miserable little document which I hold in my hand—I suppose that he is familiar with it—known as "Prescribes' Notes". It is a guide to doctors. As far as I can see no other document of any importance reaches the doctors.
I should like to know what else he is doing. There seems to be a sense of defeatism in the Ministry over this question. It cannot control the rising cost of the drug bill, and is now reduced to raising money by taxing the sick. I suggest that one of the major causes of the enormous sums of money spent on drugs is to be found in the pharmaceutical industry itself. Practically all the mixtures, tablets, powders and so on prescribed as British Pharmacopoeia preparations are made by British firms, and I agree that the margin of profit on those mixtures is not big. Therefore, the British pharmaceutical industry recoups itself by the sale of proprietaries.
In recent years there has been an invasion of this country by American firms. Of the total value of proprietaries prescribed under the National Health Service, it is estimated that 65 per cent. come from American firms. These American firms have concentrated on the profitable lines. These astute businessmen, recognising that the British Government have given them a blank cheque to sell here as much as they can, at any price they choose to ask, and to take their


profits out of the country in dollars, if they so wish, have poured all their resources into capturing this market.
They employ enormous outside sales staffs. Pfizers have over 100 representatives in this country. These firms positively embarrass our general practitioners. Instead of patients coming in, the general practitioner is invaded by a high pressure salesman. He tries to be polite, but there are patients waiting. He does his best to get the salesman out of the room, and generally in a weak moment, he promises to take something. At least, he usually takes the samples in order to get rid of the salesman.
The last time I spoke to the Minister on this matter I felt so incensed about it that I brought my samples with me—a thing which I have never done before in my life—as demonstrating what came to my household in the last post. I brought hundreds of tablets. In fact, these things are an embarrassment in doctors' households. We do not know how to dispose of all these tablets. In my last post there was a beautiful, handsome inhaler. The accompanying literature said that I should apply regarding the refills for this thing in a place in Chicago, or two places in New York. That was in the last post and when I get back tonight on my desk will be at least three more advertisements, possibly with powders or tablets from other drug houses. It so happens that in my home both my husband and myself are subject to this attack.
These firms are constantly introducing new antibiotics, and they try to justify them, as I have already said, by reference to printed articles from the American Press. By high pressure selling the British doctor is persuaded to use these preparations at enormous cost to the Service and even to the detriment of the patient. This year alone magazines have been sent free to 22,000 doctors—every doctor in the National Health Service. I have shown the Minister the kind of thing that the Service sends round. I will now read the kind of literature which the Americans send us. The one I have here is called "Antibiotic Medicine and Clinical Therapy." It carries no advertising except in respect of American products. Each of the articles comes to the positive conclusion that a particular antibiotic should be used.
These free journals are well known in America but have only recently come here because of the lure of profits under the National Health Service is so strong. Look at the beautifully coloured illustrations; we could not afford to produce such things here, but they pour into our households. They are advertising the whole time. And the Minister wonders why the drug bill is so high!
In case the Minister thinks that I have been making sweeping statements, I want to prove my case finally. This is becoming a national scandal. I will demonstrate this by drawing the Minister's attention to the prescribing of certain preparations known as "tranquillisers." The American public, apparently, has a tremendous appetite for tranquillisers, and these have—

Mr. James Griffiths: Give them to the Government.

Dr. Summerskill: —recently been introduced into this country. These tranquilliser Atarax has been prescribed under the National Health Service at a cost of £7 3s. for 250 tablets. Of course, when one is prescribing tranquillisers one does not prescribe two or three, but 25 or 50 at a time.
The sedative, meprobamate, is sold under the trade names of Miltown and Equanil. This sedative costs £4 for 250 tablets. Miltown was introduced into this country in July this year. It was then costing £6 for 250 tablets, but in June a firm produced another sedative at £4 for 250 tablets so the price of Miltown was immediately reduced to £4. Phenobarbitone tablets which, as the House knows, are a British Pharmacopoeia preparation, cost 2s. 8d. for 100. I admit that if any hon. Member here wanted to be soothed I would give him some phenobarbitone.
We must ask ourselves, and the Minister who is responsible in the matter must ask himself, what is the true value of these drugs to the patient from a therapeutic point of view. The Minister must also say what is the economic value of these drugs. By a pure coincidence, an examination has been made of these drugs. I emphasise the importance of sedatives because, as the Minister knows, a large proportion of the drugs prescribed today are of this variety.
In view of these drugs swamping the market and being called by the attractive


name of tranquillisers two physicians in the Department of Psychological Medicine at St. Thomas's Hospital, Dr. E. D. West and Dr. A. F. da Fonseca, carried out a controlled experiment of meprobamate which is sold under the trade name of Miltown and Equanil. These doctors conducted experiments on patients, and they also used phenobarbitone.
By a strange coincidence, the Minister will see from an article in the British Medical Journal of last Saturday, 24th November, that I am vindicated in what I have said about some of these drugs. I should like to read the whole of this interesting article, but I will content myself by reading the following passage:
Toxic effects of meprobamate. The sedative drug meprobamate ("Miltown," "Equanil ") is beginning to be widely prescribed in Britain. It is a drug which has been accepted everywhere in the United States both by doctors and by the public, to whom surprisingly enough it is advertised.
The article then goes on to tell how the drug is widely advertised in the United States. It also talks about the side reactions, and finally it says:
In the Journal this week Drs. E. D. West and A. F. da Fonseca report some controlled trials with meprobamate. In one of them they compared it with sodium amylobarbitone in the treatment of 51 patients with psychoneurosis and found the results were almost the same"—
The cost of phenobarbitone is 2s. 8d. for 100 tablets and the cost of meprobamate was originally £6 and was later reduced to £4 for 250 tablets, and the doctors found that the results were the same—
Meprobamate has the disadvantage of costing the hospital dispensary 24 times as much as an equivalent therapeutic dose of a short-acting barbiturate. These considerations suggest that claims made for meprobamate that it is the ideal drug for the treatment of insomnia, tension and anxiety should be accepted with great reserve.
In this limited time I can only reveal what has been done about one or two drugs which are being used in this country, but what about all the others which are piling up our drug bill? What is the Minister going to do about those? I have emphasised time after time in this House that this state of affairs should not be allowed to go on, but still the Minister does nothing. He comes here and tells the people of Britain that in order to raise £5 million he is going to

tax the sick and infirm. I say that the sick people of this country are being exploited by some of these American drug firms and that the British taxpayer is having to bear the cost. It would be interesting to learn how much money these American firms are taking out of the country.
It has been argued—this is the Minister's answer—that we export £30 million of drugs and that any interference with profit margins here would kill the export trade. That argument certainly has validity when applied to British firms, but it certainly has no validity when applied to American firms which do not export very much, and certainly do not export to dollar markets.
Finally, I am not only concerned with the cost in terms of money of this American encroachment on the National Health Service, but with the harmful effect, both physical and mental, of this high-powered boosting of drugs which caters for the hypochondriac and the neurotic. Here, I suggest, is where the Minister should look for his savings on the drug account and not in the little purses of the sick and aged of this country.

7.58 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I am glad have the opportunity of following the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and I am only sorry, as is so often the case when I follow her, that much that she says with which I agree seems to be so exaggerated and distorted that one finds the picture as she seeks to present it somewhat removed from the actual facts of the case with which one is dealing.
I believe that there would be general sympathy in the House with the point of view that the right hon. Lady expressed about the high-pressure salesmanship with which many proprietary medicines today are put on the market. But when she puts the problem to the House, how often she ignores the two vital considerations that have to be faced. The first is this. Is the doctor, or is he not, to be free to prescribe for his patient whatever he in his undivided professional responsibility considers the right medicine for that patient?
It is no good our attacking proprietary medicines and methods of propaganda


used on behalf of those medicines unless we are prepared to say whether or not we propose to take the discretion away from the doctor and give it to the Minister by means of a list of banned proprietaries that may not be prescribed. I am afraid it is implicit in the right hon. Lady's argument that we cannot rely upon the knowledge and skill of the general practitioner.

Miss Jennie Lee: Is it not the case that doctors have already been given a list of medicines which are not proprietary, and which are exactly the same as proprietary medicines?

Sir H. Linstead: I do not dissent from that. The hon. Lady is perfectly right. Nevertheless, if one follows the right hon. Lady's argument to its logical conclusion, one is brought up against that fundamental fact, and it is my personal view that we must at all times safeguard the right of the general practitioner ultimately to provide for his patient what he, in his personal, professional discretion, considers is necessary.
Another point in the right hon. Lady's speech to which I particularly wanted to refer was a remark which she made at the very beginning—that the Minister had betrayed his trust. Much of her speech could have been made when the Bill to introduce charges for the National Health Service was first brought in. And I would remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite that that Bill was brought in under the aegis of Lord Attlee, when he was Prime Minister. If the right hon. Lady's argument is to be applied today, it is an argument which could equally have been applied at that time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We applied it.

Sir H. Linstead: It is not an argument which can be directed against my right hon. Friend.
In considering the whole question of the increasing cost of the National Health Service, a point to which it is worth while referring is the original conception in the Beveridge Report of where our Health Service ought to come in the scheme of social security. I am sure that the conclusion in that Report was right—that the Health Service ought not to be linked with any insurance scheme. I am sure

that we are right to keep a dividing line between family allowances and the Health Service, which are essentially to be paid out of taxation, and the other elements of the social security scheme, which are insurance elements; and I do not consider that we could meet any increased cost of the Health Service by means of an increase in weekly contributions. That, I think, would be going back on a principle which I am sure was right when it was enunciated by Lord Beveridge.
In my view, we cannot entirely and lightheartedly ignore, as the right hon. Lady ignored, the question of the mounting cost of the Service. The estimate which was given in the Beveridge Report was of about £170 million a year. We all know that the cost of the Service is now running between £500 million and £600 million a year.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am sure that the hon. Member would not like to mislead the House. We must interpret the figures in terms of the prices of which Beveridge was thinking at that time. It is grossly unfair to make the general public think that the figure is three times as much as the £170 million. It should be related to present-day costs.

Mr. William Hamilton: As the Guillebaud Report says.

Sir H. Linstead: It can be argued, as Guillebaud quite rightly argued, that in proportion to the national income—

Mr. Hamilton: Then why did not the hon. Member say so?

Sir H. Linstead: —the cost of the Health Service is, if anything, lower today than it was in 1948, when it was introduced, but Guillebaud did not make any comparison, as I was making a comparison, between the estimate given in the Beveridge Report and the annual cost, which today is about four times that estimate.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: rose—

Sir H. Linstead: I think that I had better continue without giving way to the hon. Member.
That being the situation, I think one is also entitled to ask oneself this question: is it or is it not true that a large


proportion or those who use the Health Service can today afford to make some contribution towards it? My answer to that question is, "Undoubtedly, yes."

Mr. Charles A. Howell: On the hon. Gentleman's side of the House, no doubt.

Sir H. Linstead: For the great bulk of the people today, we have only to look at the figures for expenditure on things like tobacco and alcoholic beverages—

Mr. Ellis Smith: And arms and Suez.

Sir H. Linstead: —to see that they are well able to afford to make some contribution to the cost of the Service. The problem which we all have to face is not the problem of 90 per cent. of the users of the Service. The problem which we have to face—and it was a problem which the right hon. Lady very properly underlined—is that of, let us say, the 10 per cent.—the people for whom the use of this Service will involve hardship if they have to pay. I do not think that the arguments which can be put on behalf of those people are aided if they are regarded as the typical users of the Service, because I am sure they are not.

Mr. Percy Collick: I know that the hon. Member has a lot of experience of the hospital services. He must know that under these Regulations thousands of chronic sick will have to pay 4s. and 5s. for a prescription. May I ask him to say, frankly, whether he supports that?

Sir H. Linstead: If I thought that that would be the situation—

Mr. Collick: It will be.

Sir H. Linstead: I think I have had at least as much experience of the running of the Health Service, both in the hospital service and elsewhere, as anyone in the House.
If I felt that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) had put a case which was factual, I should have grave doubts, but I have made the most careful inquiries of my right hon. Friend about that sort of case, and although I will not anticipate what he will say to the House, I will say that, personally, I am satisfied that the arrangements which he is contemplating are such as to make the cases which have been mentioned almost nonexistent, if not non-existent.

Mr. Mellish: Absolute rubbish.

Sir H. Linstead: The group of cases about which one is concerned consists of the borderline cases between those who are on National Assistance and those who quite clearly are able to make some contribution towards the cost of their medicine. Such a case may be the person who, until now, has been too proud to collect money from the Assistance Board. Those are the cases about which I feel a great deal of sympathy and upon which, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to say so, I have been very closely cross-questioning him.

Mr. Collick: Successfully?

Sir H. Linstead: The hon. Gentleman will be able to judge when he has heard what my right hon. Friend has to say. I can only say that I have been greatly heartened by the manner in which I have found my right hon. Friend striving in every possible way, by administrative means which he will, of course, explain to the House, to meet the problem of that particular group of cases which has given me, personally, so much concern.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend to do what I feel sure he will do, to watch the working of this scheme in order to see whether the worst fears which have been expressed are realised. If they are, it may be that the scheme must be looked at again. My own expectation is that, just as we had these fears expressed when the 1s. charge was imposed and then found that most of them were groundless, probably we shall again find that the fears which have been expressed recently will likewise be largely groundless. My right hon. Friend would do much if he were to assure us of his intention to be guided by the actual experience of the next few months.
I wonder whether he would consider another point—which occurred to me only today, but which, I believe, has some merit. I do not believe that there is any alternative to the general practitioner's patient going to the Assistance Board for a refund, but in the case of the out-patient at a hospital I am not at all sure that it would not be possible to use the hospital almoner service as a substitute for the Assistance Board. That particular modification might make things easier for a small group of hospital outpatients, and is, therefore, very well worth further consideration.
The right hon. Lady referred to the point of view of the pharmacist. That point of view has been put to me quite strongly, and I have passed on to my right hon. Friend the pharmacists' fears and doubts. I have suggested to him that an alternative means by which the same result that he seeks could be achieved would be a straight increase in the 1s. That might have been achieved without hardship, because of all the modifications in the scheme which he is introducing to meet hardship. However, he has always turned down that scheme on the ground that it would probably cause greater hardship than the scheme which he himself is proposing to implement. All the way through I have found my right hon. Friend very conscious of the necessity of meeting these hardship cases.
In concluding her remarks, the right hon. Lady indulged in a wholehearted attack, with which all of us must have had some sympathy, on the proprietary medicine, and particularly the American proprietary medicine. On that point, I have this to say to the House. If we look at the whole history of therapeutics over the last fifty years we will see an almost inevitable move towards proprietary medicine. As medical science becomes more and more complicated, as new scientific discoveries come along, so, less and less, can those products be made in the dispensary of a chemist's shop, and more and more, inevitably, have they to be made in the factory. There is no escaping from it.
It may be true that a very large proportion of our prescriptions here are for proprietary medicines, but it is nothing like as high a proportion as it is in foreign countries, In Canada and the United States of America, high-pressure salesmanship or not, from 80 to 90 per cent. of the prescriptions are for specialities.

Mr. Herbert Butler: They have not got a Health Service.

Sir H. Linstead: I do not see the relevance of that argument.
If there is a Health Service, inhibitions upon generous prescribing by physicians do not exist. Where there is no Health Service, and the physician knows that the patient has to pay for the medicine out of his own pocket, the tendency is for the

physician to moderate his prescribing. What I am putting to the House is that anybody who objectively examines not merely the type of medicines which are in vogue today, but the tendency of modern prescribing, is driven to the conclusion that, whether we like it or not, the proprietary medicines will play a larger part in the therapeutics of the future.
That adds point to the argument of the right hon. Lady. If that, in fact, is the tendency of medicine—as I am quite certain it is—it places a special responsibility on any Minister of Health to see that there is—I do not wish to use the words "control"—an understanding, both by the public and by prescribes, of the role of medicine of any kind in a community. A great deal can be done to educate the public away from the bottle of medicine. I cannot really believe that this country needs 220 million prescriptions poured down its throat every year.
The basic responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of the general practitioner, but my concluding thought to my right hon. Friend is that, without considerable educational efforts on the part of his Department in relation both to the public and to the general practitioners, he will not find that he can put a serious curb on the increase of prescribing under the National Health Service. I should like to see the curb put on that prescribing, and I think that it can be done, not by control and compulsion but by a system of education. I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that as a long-term objective which is really likely to produce the economies in the grossly exaggerated present-day bill which all of us here most want to see.
I shall oppose this Prayer tonight. I believe that the Minister could, perhaps, with a less complicated scheme have achieved what he wished to achieve. The big question, however, is whether all this medicine is really necessary. The answer to that is not to be found in a small charge put upon the user of the medicine, but in a much larger long-term project of educating both public and practitioner.

8.7 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: As so many people are worried about these proposed charges, I think it is just as well at the outset to state the position of Her Majesty's Opposition. Her Majesty's


Opposition is pledged to ensure that when we have a Labour Government we shall have a free National Health Service, and that we shall not torment patients as we are doing today. It is important to say that because, obviously—and this is the kindest thing I can say about them—hon. Members opposite do not understand what they are doing. Maybe it is to their credit that so few of them are on the benches opposite. Maybe I am doing them an injustice, and that they do know what they are doing and are so ashamed of it that there is practically no one on the opposite side of the House who wants to speak in support of what their own Government are doing.
That is one possible interpretation. The other interpretation is that hon. Members opposite cannot really understand the importance of 1s., cannot really understand that in many a household it may be a frightening thing to feel that if one goes to the doctor, and gets a prescription, it will cost 2s., 3s., 4s., or 5s. to get the medicine that has been prescribed. That is one fear among the poorest of all—and National Assistance is not the answer.
Even among the very poorest families, many people do not apply for it because they do not know how to do so. That, too, may surprise hon. Members opposite. There are bewildered people who do not know how to go about this procedure, unless they are already drawing National Assistance and are familiar with the procedure. There are literally millions of people, sometimes old people, perhaps an elderly bachelor or a spinster living on a pension, sometimes families where there are several children, who have to decide whether to pay 1s. extra for a prescription or 1s. for a loaf.
What a monument to a rich men's Government that it should be bread and medicine which they single out for their attack. I should like to understand better how hon. Members opposite see themselves. Do they ever look in the mirror of world opinion? By their foreign policy hon. Members opposite are managing to shock and antagonise American opinion, the Far East and the Middle East. Not only from these benches has it been said that the Government have come within an ace of splitting

the Commonwealth. They are building up an opposition much more powerful than was represented at the last Election.
Hon. Members opposite have even done what some of us at one time would have thought almost impossible. They have antagonised even the British Medical Association. I do not take the view that a responsible Government must, first, find out what every vested interest wants and then say, "We have got to do that." I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) when she said that we must find out the facts. But, once we have found the facts, we have got to make our own decision. One of the most conservative professions in this country, a profession which did not fight for a free Health Service, but which is now appreciating more and more the virtues of a free Health Service, is now attacking the Government.
It is amazing to think that the order of priorities among hon. Members opposite is that they must go to the sick and to the children to collect £5 million. What is £5 million to a Government who can spend £1,500 million on armaments? How much are they spending on Suez? Many families are losing the breadwinner to National Service. Many a widow and old man is dependent on a son who would have been bringing in extra money. These are the families who are losing the breadwinner who is serving abroad on National Service fighting for things which many are doubtful about while their families are left struggling to make ends meet.
I began by saying that we on this side of the House are pledged to ensure that we do not behave in such a cowardly fashion. I do not think that the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government is cowardly so much as stupid. I think that they are living in the past and are unable to adjust themselves to the modern world. But the policy which
they are asking the House to endorse tonight is worse than stupid. It is cowardly and cruel.
I do not wish to speak too long. There are hon. Members who will refer to the Guillebaud Report and who will mention many other matters, but I wish to say that we on this side of the House are pledged to see that we stop this form of petty persecution, and with that pledge goes the obligation to see that not one


penny is wasted. We cannot possibly be responsible for allowing proprietary medicines to add millions of pounds to the cost of prescriptions if we are satisfied that medicine which is equally efficacious can be provided without those extortionate charges.
The doctor needs our help. We must be certain that the proper equipment can be provided. We will not tolerate a state of affairs in which the National Health Service patient has to accept inferior treatment, and we will not tolerate medicine, however expensive, being denied to the patient. It is high time that there were real economies in the National Health Service so that it can be expanded. It is a disgrace that instead of having more hospitals, better specialist services, and all the things which are still lacking in the Health Service, we should be spending less on it and then attacking the most defenceless and weak in order to save a million or two pounds.
We may not have the power in the Division Lobby tonight to stop this imposition, but we will say with a strong and united voice that we are ashamed of what is being done by the House of Commons because of the dominance of the Tory Party, and that we shall do our utmost to end it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mrs. Hill.

Mr. Collick: On a point of order. May I, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ask the Minister whether he proposes to intervene at an early stage in this debate? Having regard to what the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said, it would appear that the Minister has some information about the chronic sick which we ought to have before we continue this debate. It would be helpful to us if he were to intervene.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mrs. Hill.

8.18 p.m.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has been very vehement in her condemnation of this charge but, as the House has already been reminded, the first realisation that the cost of prescriptions was heavy came when hon. Members opposite were in power.
This debate indicates three dilemmas. It shows the Minister's dilemma, the doctors' dilemma, and the patients' dilemma. The Minister's dilemma is that his prescription bill is now racing ahead at an alarming pace. The patients' dilemma has already been mentioned, and I would ask hon. Members opposite to realiise that we on this side of the House understand the needs of the class of people to whom reference has been made. Hon. Members opposite seem to forget that everybody in the Tory Party is not by any means wealthy.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) drew attention to the doctors' dilemma. I was interested to hear her comments because I think that she, as a doctor, can probably do a good deal in her own organisation to encourage doctors to prescribe differently from the way in which many of them are prescribing. The Guillebaud Report stated that the 1s. prescription had not reduced the quantities prescribed. In fact, the Committee says:
Our evidence suggests that it is now having little effect on doctors' prescribing, other than to lead to some increase in the number of items on each prescription".
That, possibly, is one of the things which has led to this tremendous increase in the drug bill; so many things are being put on the prescriptions, which, indeed, were not advised in the handbook which the doctors have. I would, therefore, say to the right hon. Lady that she can do a great deal to help in this respect.
I am quite sure that every one of us in this House would very much prefer to see money spent on work such as that to which the right hon. Lady referred, work which those of us who are deeply concerned in the Health Service know is needed, namely, the improvement of our hospitals. A great deal of improvement in our hospitals is needed, and we can do that if we do not have to spend so much in this other direction.
I agree fully with the right hon. Lady in her denunciation of the prescribing of expensive drugs in place of those at much more reasonable prices, produced in this country, which could be prescribed.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) has suggested that there is a tendency among doctors to prescribe many more items on a single


form, and that they really ought to observe the handbook recommendation. Is it not a fact that our handbook recommends two prescriptions on the one form, and that the average number of pre scriptions on any one form at present is 1·75?

Mrs. Hill: Yes; but what has helped to add to this enormous bill is that so many more have been prescribed on one form, with the result that a good many people have been getting their prescriptions much more cheaply than they would otherwise have done. The suggestion we are now considering is one way in which that might be minimised.
To return to the subject of expensive drugs, no one here would wish patients to be denied the benefit of something absolutely brand new which is very much better than
anything we have had before. We all want to see patients receiving the benefit of those drugs. But we do not want to see them treated with expensive drugs such as those mentioned by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington.
I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to take very careful note of any cases of hardship which may be brought to his notice. I am as anxious as anyone else that the administration of this Service should be as simple as possible and that we should spend as little money on unnecessary things as possible. I have had in mind one possible way to save a good deal of the coming and going which is involved, getting the receipt, going to the Post Office, and so on. I am not suggesting that there should be a special form, but I have wondered whether it might eliminate some of the administrative work if doctors would, on production of the National Assistance book in appropriate cases, put the number of that book on the prescription form.
If that could be done, the patient would then not need to claim anything at all; chemists already have to sort out into various categories their prescription forms at the end of the week. I should have thought that that might have been one little thing which could be done to ease the burden on a good many people.
On the other counts, I hope that a patient who is attending hospital will not have to make two journeys to collect whatever is prescribed. I am as anxious,

I think, as anyone else in this Chamber that those people who are not in good health shall not be put to greater disadvantage than need be.
I hope that the Minister will examine some of the suggestions which have been made. By all means, let us spend an adequate amount of money on our Service. By all means, let us give our patients the best. But we must not waste, and this, I think, is one of the ways that the Minister sees as an attempt at stopping waste. Let it be a lesson. So many people have the idea that all the cost of the Health Service comes out of what is paid each week for their stamps.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) mentioned that the Health Service should be paid for out of taxation. We should all realise that the greater part of the cost does come out of taxation. It has been suggested that probably about £40 million is taken from the weekly amount subscribed, and that all the rest comes out of taxation. I sincerely feel that it is up to everyone in the country to realise that what we have we must pay for, and that if it does not come out of the left-hand pocket it comes out of the right-hand pocket. Realising that, let us use the Service wisely.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: It must be a long time, I think, since we had three hon. Lady Members appearing so prominently in any of our debates at such an early stage. If I do not attempt to deal with some of the technical questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) or with points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), I hope they will excuse me, because I would prefer, during the few moments I wish to detain the House, to refer not to the technical considerations, the largely professional aspects of this problem of the increased cost of prescriptions, but rather to the economic impact on the poorest families of these proposals which many of us so deeply resent.
I have the honour to represent a Lancashire constituency where, due to the shifting of population and the drift of industry to the newer industrial areas in the South, we have an inordinate proportion of old people in our communities. It is particularly among those comprising


that section of the community, pensioners over 65 years of age, many of whom are oppressed by chronic sickness, that the deepest resentment will be felt.
In this House we have the privilege of representing the people of our country in our various constituencies. It is, surely, our honourable duty here to make articulate the feelings of those who will be called upon to pay this additional penal tax under the Minister's proposal. I say quite sincerely that I am sorry to see the Minister of Health sitting on that Front Bench tonight as though he were sitting at the "penitents' form". His may be the administrative hand, but really it is his overlord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has decreed what is proposed.
How foolish and how anti-social it is for any Administration which sets out, as the Chancellor said some months ago, to achieve an overall saving of £100 million in public expenditure, to say to the Minister of Health that his share shall be £5 million out of the hundred. He has not considered its implications but has merely placed a poll tax on the National Health Service. He has forgotten that we have in this country about 6£ million people over the age of 65, of whom nearly one million, old men and old ladies, are living alone. Often they are sick people who require very much in their remaining years the services of the National Health Scheme.
We have to consider not only the old people but the married couples in failing health and requiring constant medical attention who, out of their pension of 65s. a week, may be called upon to pay up to 5s. or 6s. a week for these charges. It is no use the Minister telling me when he replies, as no doubt he will be qualified to do in his defence, that he is making provision for these people to seek National Assistance. Many of my constituents are still too proud to go for National Assistance. If they are suffering physical illness, they should not have added to their anxieties all this chasing about to get a book-keeping transaction put right and to obtain reimbursement.
Without exaggerating in any way, I should like to put before the Minister a typical case which has been brought to my notice—I hope that my colleagues

who succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, will do the same—to illustrate, not theoretically but practically, the implications of the Minister's action. I quote the case of a man who 20 years ago became a victim of epilepsy.
He was at that time a man with a good future, who had qualified as a colliery under-manager. He was working underground, and if he had been able to continue at his chosen avocation he would today be earning very high wages. This man, unfortunately, fell by the wayside and began to develop epilepsy, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington referred in opening the debate. He did not lie down to it, but took proper medical advice and was supplied with the usual barbitone and the newer drugs which are use for treatment.
By constant medical treatment for over 20 years this man has been able to maintain himself and his family by suitable light employment. Had he been in any way a malingerer, he could at any time have secured medical evidence of total incapacity and become a charge on public funds—National Insurance, National Assistance and all the rest. His position is typical of thousands of others.
In future, he will be called upon to pay up to 6s. on each occasion that he goes for the three or four types of drugs which are prescribed for him. He is already living on the margin of subsistence because he earns only a low wage. It is scandalous that this House of Commons, the guardian of the liberties and interests of the common people, should assent to any proposal by the Government to penalise those who by sickness or poverty are already the hardest hit members of the community.
I conclude—I know there are many others who share my indignation—by referring to the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who is not at the moment in his place. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has gone for a tranquilliser."] I do not know whether he has gone to take a dose of tranquilliser. I could suggest parts of the world where we might export large doses with good effect on the politics of this country.
I felt very sorry that the hon. Member for Putney, who is highly respected in this House and is accepted as an authority on


many of these questions, in which he is professionally interested, should put himself in the position of being used as a stooge to defend the Minister, because I do not believe that he had much confidence in the brief that he was reading to us.
I hope that in spite of the strong expressions which, no doubt, will be made from these benches—I have made my contribution as modestly as I can under great provocation—this matter is not allowed simply to be settled, as so many things are, by the ringing of a bell at about ten o'clock or half-past ten when most of the Members on the Tory side have not even troubled to come to listen to the argument. Perhaps I ought not to condemn the method of deciding things by Divisions, as I am a party Whip. That is one of the ways in which the House machine works. I know that there are hon. Members on the other side of the House who, to their great credit, still have some human instincts. If they are not able to secure a reversal of this policy by persuasion of the Minister, if the matter is to end tonight in the ringing of bells and the shepherding of hon. Members opposite into the Lobby, the only redress left to us on this side of the House will be to redouble our efforts to dear out this Government, who have betrayed every undertaking they gave to the public when they obtained their mandate.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), because we are both Lancashire Members and in some way our two constituencies are similar. The hon. Gentleman referred to the way population has drifted from South Lancashire. The same thing is happening in some of the towns of East Lancashire. I know well the problems to which he has referred, such as the elderly who have to have medicines and more intensive medical treatment than those of us who are younger.
However, this problem of charges in the National Health Service has recurred regularly, in 1949 and 1951, when the party opposite was in power, in 1952 and now in 1956. Both parties have been confronted with exactly the same problem. The basic problem was well put

by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) when he was Minister of Health. He said:
It was absolutely necessary to obtain money from charges upon some other parts of the Health Service so that we could maintain the essentials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April. 1951; Vol. 487, c. 238.]

Dr. Barnett Stross: Was that the speech in which my right hon. Friend accepted an Amendment to a Bill to ensure that all charges would cease after two budgetary years, namely, in April, 1954?

Mr. Fort: No. That was his opening speech on Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill of 1951. Amendments were subsequently made in Committee.

Dr. Stross: Yes, it was the same year.

Mr. Fort: The then Labour Prime Minister, who is now in another place, made a comment which is as apposite today as it was when he made it. He said:
The purpose"—
that is, of the charges—
is to reduce excessive and … unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists, of which there is evidence which has for some time troubled my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949: Vol. 468, c. 1019.]
So the problem has been with us ever since we started the National Health Service. It is not peculiar to this country. In countries like Australia, where, I am glad to know, they also have a national health service, they have the same trouble with the cost of prescriptions. The only way in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in the Government, could tackle it was by imposing the 1s. charge, at a time when the pharmaceutical bill was some £30 million. That bill is nearly twice as large now. The increase is really remarkable, and if that policy was sensible then, it is sensible today.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Member is usually fair in these matters. Will he get the record straight? The 1s. prescription charge was imposed because of alleged abuses. It has been in operation now for a period of years. The then Minister of Health, now the Minister of Labour, appointed the


Guillebaud Committee, which has generally reported that, if there was any excess at all, the original prescription charge had achieved its object. But the present charge is not being imposed in order to remove excesses, but to obtain about £700,000 between now and next March. The Chancellor has said that, and the hon. Member has to answer his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Member has given a possible explanation, but it is not the explanation which the then Minister of Health gave when he introduced the Bill in 1951.
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said that drugs were to be prescribed entirely free if her party returned to power, and yet in some way, which was not specified, there was to be some restriction. There was to be no waste. Had she in mind that the Labour Government would do what I hope no Conservative Government will ever do, that is, direct doctors on what they could or could not prescribe?

Miss Lee: I welcome the opportunity to intervene, because I was alarmed by a remark by an hon. Member opposite, which seemed to suggest that doctors were prescribing too many items and that steps should be taken to limit them. My point was to the entirely opposite effect. It was that National Health patients must have the medicines they require, no matter how expensive they may be, but that if a racket was being run in proprietary medicines which had precisely the same component parts, the doctor must have the protection of the Government in prescribing what the patients need, without the drugs costing five, ten and sometimes twenty times as much.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Lady means that a list would be laid down of certain drugs which could not be prescribed?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. Is it not normal for an hon. Member to declare his interest when he is debating a point of this kind?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If his pecuniary interest is not direct and is shared by other subjects of Her Majesty, he need not do so.

Mr. Fort: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) for reminding me. I had not intended to discuss these matters very much further because I have absolutely nothing to do with the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. I have been long associated with a company, one of whose branches manufacture pharmaceuticals, but I know as little about the industry as does the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "I.C.I."] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has dealt with these points, because he is an expert on the subject. I was speaking about proprietary drugs, and I understood that the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) were directed at American drug firms rather than British drug firms with which I have been long associated.
The right hon. Lady emphasised strongly that the medical profession was much opposed to these charges. If I remember aright, both the British Medical Association and the Medical Practitioners Union were opposed to charges in the case of previous legislation passed while I have been in this House. So the arguments used today are the same as those used on previous occasions when we have discussed this matter, and are not aimed specially at the proposal of my right hon. Friend.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister to one more point. We have not been too happy about the way in which relief can be given through the National Assistance Board. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would reconsider a suggestion made originally by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour in a debate in 1951?

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Opposition previously drew your attention to the very small numbers at one time on these benches. Those of us who are here are desirous of hearing the speeches, and I wonder whether the Opposition could be a little quieter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not think there was undue noise.

Mr. Fort: Anyway, Sir, I have a fairly powerful voice. The proposal made in 1951 for simplifying the way in which the National Assistance Board can give help was that a system should be adopted


for prescription and other charges similar to that of the home help service. Such a system might be very suitable in the present circumstances, when perhaps more people may have to apply to the National Assistance Board than they had to with the 1s. prescription charge.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: It would appear so far that from the other side of the House we have heard a number of alleged experts on hospital management boards, pharmacy and Imperial Chemical Industries. Perhaps it might be refreshing to look for a change at the other side of the picture. One thing which struck me was how remote are the people closely associated with hospital management boards, pharmacy and I.C.I. from the real problem which will arise from these Regulations.
This is much more of a human problem than has been suggested so far in the debate. Naturally, none of us wants to see expensive drugs prescribed if cheaper drugs are available, provided they do as much good and are suitable substitutes. May I ask some of those who have spoken this evening about the cost of the National Health Service whether they realise the benefits we have had from it? Has anybody given any thought to the people who are alive today simply because we have a Health Service?
Has anybody remembered that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite voted against the National Health Service? Do they think that our memories are as short as that? If savings of £5 million have to be made, why have they again so viciously attacked that section of the community? Let us be more realistic. It is a most contemptible and mean thing to do to attack the sick and the poor. It is something that no respectable or decent representative anywhere would condone for a moment.
Let us consider some of the aspects, because, whatever arguments may be produced on either side, at the end of the day the result of the increased charges is a tendency to reduce the number of medicines which may be deemed necessary. How many people realise exactly what medicines are required for some diseases?
Let us take coronary thrombosis, which is a horrible, killing disease. It is

responsible for more deaths in Scotland than any other disease. I do not know what the figure is in England, but I do know that deaths from the disease have increased five times during the last twenty years.
What kind of medicine is prescribed for victims of coronary thrombosis? I am not a doctor, but I happen to know a little about the subject. I know that one thing required is trinite. One also probably requires amyl nitrite. It is necessary to give people not only a chance to live but also a chance to work, when working is important, and this is an additional benefit to be obtained from the National Health Service. In addition to those two drugs, one might require pethidine, to kill deep pain. Also, today hospitals and doctors prescribe micardol as a preventive measure against angina attacks. So far, we have four drugs.
Many victims of coronary thrombosis also have prescribed an anti-coagulant which slows up the coagulation of the blood and minimises the danger of their having a fatal clot. We now have five medicines. Also, pheno-barbitones are prescribed, not as tranquillisers but merely so that people may settle down a bit. Further, so that sufferers may get a little sleep, they may be prescribed nembotal or sodium amital or some other drug. So far, we find that the victim of coronary thrombosis may have seven medicines prescribed. That does not exhaust the list.
Let us take the case of a person suffering from diabetes. He will require insulin. There are more than two types of insulin, but two types are within my knowledge, and these are the soluble insulin, which acts rather quickly, and the protamine zinc, which lasts over a longer period. In some cases a diabetic has to take some of both types. It depends entirely upon the degree of seriousness of the disease.
The diabetic may have to undergo a test to discover whether or not his diabetes is active. He has to have some solution for the purpose of this test, and this may be provided by means of Benedict solution or something in tablet form. For these things and other things he may have to go backwards and forwards to the doctor. He will require hypodermic needles and a hypodermic syringe, and also, from time to time,


replacements. He will also need cotton wool.
Because of the nature of the disease, the diabetic is also subject to skin eruptions and other troubles which are difficult to cure. Even though one has no medical knowledge, one must realise that he requires prescriptions for bandages and ointments. In fact, there are about eight things, without going into the matter too deeply, which a diabetic is most likely to require.
Although I do not have any medical knowledge, it is within my experience that a diabetic may suffer from coronary thrombosis. Indeed, that often happens. If we add together all the drugs and other items which I have already mentioned, we appreciate what a number of prescriptions may be required.
Persons in the conditions which I have described are usually in a very low general state of health, and they are subject to all sorts of complaints which require prescriptions. There is no need for me to go any deeper into the matter of what is required by sick people in the lowest income groups to make hon. Members appreciate the damage, hardship and distress caused by the introduction of these increased charges.
This is a human problem, one which nobody can slide round by mere excuses about what was done by the Labour Government some years ago, even if for a limited period. Let the Minister and those who support him be conscious that he is inflicting a hardship on the people who can bear it least and is causing greater damage to the country's economy than the expenditure of a miserable £5 million. He may be restricting the recovery of people who are sick and who need careful doctoring and ample medicine when necessary and of the right type.
It is perfectly clear that if one has health, one has the possibility of being wealthy. This is attacking the unhealthy because those who suffer a degree of bad health are very often lacking in wealth. I intended saying something about old-age pensioners. I have already heard the lovely story, the lovely excuse, about the National Assistance Board.
The Minister of Health had considerable experience at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and realises that there are many pensioners and others

living on small, fixed incomes those living on National Insurance payments of all descriptions who are borderline cases and who, simply because of a bare 1s. do not now come within the scope of the scheme. They are denied the benefit of free spectacles and a whole range of other benefits simply because they are borderline cases. There are the very people again who, because they do not qualify for National Assistance, will suffer. Will the Minister make any provision for that sort of case?
I force myself to conclude. There is very much more that I wanted to say. I have seen many sufferers from all these complaints. I have seen them sitting hopeless and almost in despair, anxious about their illness and facing the fear of poverty. The Government and their supporters are making that situation worse tonight. They are running true to form. Nobody expected much of them, but what a destructive thing they are doing tonight! They did not like the Health Service in the first place. They have had several bites at the cherry in an attempt to destroy it, but by their action tonight they are, in fact, destroying themselves.

8.58 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I want to confine myself to one particular aspect of this subject which we all have very much at heart. I speak in the knowledge that it is the full intention of my right hon. Friend to alleviate cases of hardship wherever possible. On this side of the House we are all confident that that is the earnest intention of my right hon. Friend while bringing in these charges.
In doing that, I should like my right hon. Friend to look closely at a list which I have submitted to him of life-saving drugs and their appropriate diseases, concerning which I asked a Question in the House last week and about which I should like to speak. The list covers all categories of serious diseases, including those which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) mentioned and those to which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) referred. I shall refer to the list in detail in a few minutes. Before doing so I want to say something about the proportion of the total number of prescriptions which the drugs in such a list represent.
A test has been carried out at a London chemist's, and it has shown that the percentage of prescriptions relating to these life-saving drugs as compared with the total number of prescriptions is about 4¾ per cent. Out of a total of 3,252 prescriptions presented, only 156 contained these drugs. I must admit that the cost of these drugs is considerably more than the average. Whereas the average cost of other drugs is 7s. 8d., the average cost of the life-saving drugs is 19s. 7d. Therefore, from the point of view of cost, lifesaving drugs account for about 12 per cent. of the entire total.
It is important that we should have some appreciation of what the total cost to the Service would be if we eliminated these life-saving drugs from liability to a prescription charge. According to the figures which I have here, the total amount of contributions from the public is about £6,870,000, and 12 per cent. of that is about £800,000. That means that my right hon. Friend would have to forgo approximately that amount of money if he made these drugs freely prescribable, but I put it to him that that would be a comparatively small proportion of the total figure, and, also, that if he took this course he would eliminate the necessity of many people having to get their shillings back from the National Assistance Board, thereby avoiding duplication.
I admit that it is difficult to define diseases, and that if people with certain diseases were to have their prescriptions free of cost some difficulty might arise. There would, naturally, be a certain amount of pressure from the public in this matter. If care were not taken there would be a danger that people would be classified as suffering from heart disease when their hearts were not in a very bad condition, or from a bacterial disease when they merely had tonsillitis. That is a danger in any arrangement of this kind.

Mr. C. A. Howell: Is the hon. Member saying that he cannot trust the doctors?

Dr. Johnson: I am not saying that at all. I am a doctor myself.
What I have said applies in a small number of cases. The majority of the diseases to which I am referring—cancer,

tuberculosis, blood diseases, such as leukaemia and epilepsy—are clearly defined entities. But there is clearly a marginal number of diseases, of the kind I have mentioned previously, in respect of which it would be difficult to lay down definitions.
I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. C. Howell). Of course, we should require the co-operation of the doctors in the matter. There would have to be some sort of scheme defining the position which would demand the co-operation of the doctors. I am quite sure that the medical associations would give their cooperation in the matter particularly if, as I personally think can be justified, their private patients were also included in such a scheme.
I am positive that something could be worked out with the collaboration of the medical associations whereby marginal diseases such as bacterial diseases in which it is difficult to draw a line—heart diseases and that sort of thing—could be defined for inclusion in such a scheme. Therefore, I would press my right hon. Friend to look at this list again to see whether something can be done, perhaps by a kind of pilot experiment such as the test by a chemist to which I have referred, to see whether some modification of this kind can be made.
I would like to conclude with a word on the question of proprietary drugs on which I can speak with some experience. Naturally, I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) when he says doctors must be left to decide what is best for the patients. None the less, I also agree with what the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington said about the immense pressure that is brought to bear on doctors in the matter of advertising at the present time, particularly by American firms.
I can produce an even better exhibit in that connection than was produced by the right hon. Lady. I had an almost complete anatomical atlas handed me one day by a traveller in my surgery. He handed me this expensive publication and went out of the surgery in a matter of two or three minutes. That is the type of pressure, particularly from American firms, that is being put on doctors at


present. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at that matter also and consider whether savings can be made in that way, and thus avoid the present distressing situation. I oppose this Prayer because I believe that with modifications of this kind the present proposals can be operated without hardship.

9.9 p.m.

Mr R. J. Mellish: I think it can fairly be said that the vast majority of doctors would undoubtedly co-operate in the matter of prescriptions and would prescribe National Health Service formulae if they were available instead of proprietary brands of drugs. I do not deny that there is a large scope for economy. I accept all that, but having said so, I do not see, for many of the reasons already given, why the Government should introduce these charges.
I propose to be very brief in my remarks because I know that several other hon. Members wish to speak, and also so that I may be able to carry out the orders of my own Front Bench. In order to let the House know that I am talking with some knowledge on the subject, I have in my hand a brief prepared by doctors in my own constituency. I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) will do me the honour of reading my speech.
I propose to quote from figures given me by these doctors in order to prove that this charge will create the hardships which some of my hon. Friends have already outlined.
I have been given figures by
responsible people, doctors who have been associated
for many years with a medical mission in my constituency where the chronic sick are treated. They have had vast experience. I do not know their politics; so far as I know, they are not favourable to my party, but on this occasion they have asked me on their behalf to express their fears.
They tell me that already their patients are terribly worried about the effects of the new charges. There is great distress, and already attempts have been made by many patients to try to hoard parts of the supplies given on present prescriptions. They say that the immediate problem will be that of finding the ready cash to pay for the new charges.
One of the biggest problems in constituencies like mine is presented by the home bound chronic sick. Will the Minister tell me how they are to find the money? Will they be given a prescription which
will immediately entitle them to what is prescribed or will they have to have 5s. available? If they have not got the money, how can they get it? What about the chronic sick suffering from heart disease who
might be called upon to pay a fee of 5s. and who might be asked to go to an Assistance Board three miles away from home? How do they get the money?
That is one of the problems about which these people are worried. The
prescription charge of 15/25/2007s. has already created a tremendous hardship in this respect, and when we glibly talk about the fact that people can easily get their money back from the Assistance Board, we ought to remember that these people must have the money in their pockets in the first instance to pay the fee. Now they will need to have 4s. or 5s. available.
An analysis has been done of the prescriptions given to one hundred old people during the months of September and October of this year who were attending the out-patients' department for geriatrics. These are the figures. Six patients only were given prescriptions for five items; 30 were given prescriptions for four items, 38 were given three items on a prescription; 16 were given two; and 10 were given one. In other words, 68 of those 100 patients had three or four items prescribed on one prescription.
The reason is that these patients had either blood pressure, heart trouble, bronchitis, ulcers, dyspepsia or arthritis, and needed extra items on the prescriptions, as will be understood. I inquired of this clinic what would be the response to the Minister's suggestion that he would allow the doctors to give package prescriptions of, say, a three months' supply in advance. That is what the Minister will tell us tonight. He will say that these doctors will be allowed to prescribe a three months' supply in order to avoid great hardship, and that this will all be done on one prescription.
They have asked me to say to the Minister, and I am glad to be given the opportunity to say it now, that if they prescribe in the fashion which he has suggested the result will be a tremendous


waste of public money, because in cases of this kind it is essential for the patients to have constant medical attention. The doctors have frequently to change the prescriptions. Where on one occasion they may be giving treatment for heart trouble, perhaps the next time they see the patient there are other symptoms which call for an entirely different treatment. The doctors encourage these patients to come again and again to the clinic so that they can be kept alive.
A reasonably fit person who suffers an illness has to pay 3s. or 4s. on a prescription, and then he can go to the Assistance Board to collect the money, but does not the Minister agree that the people about whom I am speaking will not be able to do that? The constituency which I represent is typical of many in the London area. The population has decreased, and one in five are old people. The effect of all that the present Government have done since they have been in power has been badly felt by these old people.
In the main, those people have never voted Tory. One can well understand why they do not vote Tory. What a crowd hon. Members opposite are! They are so unfair. The Minister and his hon. Friends will not support an investigation into armaments, costing £1,500 million a year; that can be spent at any time. When it is suggested that we should have a Geddes axe on that expenditure, they are not a bit interested. But they propose to find £5 million from prescriptions. They ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I hope the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument, but I wish to make only one short point. I am perfectly confident that the Minister will do all he can to alleviate cases of hardship where-ever possible. I must say that I do not like these charges, especially as they affect old-age pensioners.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Why not vote against them?

Mr. Ridsdale: I trust that everything will be done, where possible, to see that people do not have to draw National Assistance in order to pay the extra

charges. In my division old-age pensioners do not like going to the National Assistance Board. They would rather work than go there.
My purpose in speaking tonight was to draw the Minister's attention to a letter which I received this evening from a constituent. It reads:
Now, Sir, if the said pensioner applies to the N.A.B. he is told that if he owns property and has no hire-purchase payments he cannot obtain assistance. Not very conducive to thrift, is it?
I hope the Minister will assure me that any cases like that will be dealt with most sympathetically, because it is such cases which make the Opposition play on the feelings of old people.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: The first charge which I want to make against the Government is that they have underestimated the value of human life. They have failed to appreciate the effect which the policy they are now pursuing will have upon the sick, the aged and the infirm.
In the few minutes at my disposal the first thing I want to do is to read an extract from a letter, which I have received, among many others, protesting against the Government's policy. This is not a cry from Macedonia. This is a letter from a paraplegic case in Staffordshire. This man has been twenty-two years a cripple, and for fourteen of those twenty-two years he has been bedridden. This is what he writes, among other things, in a rather long letter:
I express the hope that before passing legislation for the proposed charges to become operative the Government will pay heed to the protests made and the observations made on behalf of the sufferers of diabetes, cancer, disseminated sclerosis, the aged, and the maimed and disabled, the chronic sick, and all who will be affected should the charges be implemented, for the persons who are in the most need will be the people with the greatest burdens to bear.
I do not know this man but I know that he is typical of hundreds and hundreds of cases in this country today. Yet we have the Government telling us that to effect economies they must increase the cost of prescriptions and the items thereon to 1s. per item.
I re-emphasise what I said in the House on 9th November. Any Government which seeks to restore the economic


stability of the country by inflicting greater hardships on the poor, sick and aged people is bankrupt of ideas, especially when there are so many avenues that they can tap to effect economies, and which I would enumerate if I had the time.
The Government are seeking their economies by inflicting hardships on the already over-burdened poor and aged, and, in doing so, are showing that they are more concerned about £.s.d. than about the health of those people. From information which I have received on very good authority, it appears that nine men decided that this policy should be pursued; nine men who do not understand what poverty is; nine men who are too far divorced from the actual conditions prevailing in the homes of our people, especially in the industrial areas.
They come with these proposals—and I wonder whether they have taken the trouble to examine the argument advanced in support of them? They say that between 1st December, when these Regulations become operative, and 31st March of next year, they will save £750,000, and, in a full year, will save £5 million. I wonder what the Lord Privy Seal has to say about the promise he made as Chancellor of the Exchequer? It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that in 1952 we had a very lengthy debate on the economic affairs of the country.
Many of us on these benches then had grave apprehensions that the Government then had in mind a policy—although they did not reveal it, we feared that it was in their mind to undermine the structure of the National Insurance Scheme. To allay our fears, the then Chancellor said that they would maintain the structure of the National Health Service, but would make charges where they could best be borne. Have the Government kept that promise? This proposal is exactly the opposite to what they promised, and inflicts further hardships on those least able to bear them.
We have been told many times before that all those people who are in receipt of National Assistance will have an opportunity afforded them to ask for a refund. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have not reached the stage when we are to force poor, sick, infirm people to trail down to the National Assistance Board

for a refund of 3s., 4s. or 5s. Have the Government no better policy than that? Is there not in their hearts and souls a bit more Christianity than they have so far manifested? Are they hard-hearted? Can they not lend a listening ear to those people on whose behalf we plead?
Let it be remembered that, as we on this side know from our experience in our divisions, those who make application for supplementation must be in dire need. They have nothing to spare—nothing at all. Unless they prove that they are in dire need then, as we say in Lancashire "they won't get the brass." I want to remind the Minister that there is a starting-point. What about the poor people who cannot
pay the 1s. to the chemist to start with?
I have with me a list, supplied to me by a chemist in an industrial area in my division, of people who have had to borrow money to pay for their prescriptions. We hear it said that the extra cost represents another 1 per cent. or 1·75 per cent., but it must be remembered that these people have four or five items on their prescriptions. How can they meet this extra cost?
The House should adopt a correct approach to this matter and should examine the number of people now receiving National Assistance. On 29th March, 1955, there were 1,807,466 in receipt of National Assistance. That was the highest figure ever recorded in the history of the country. Yet the Government tell us that we are in a much better position than we were. The acid test whether we are enjoying a higher standard of living is to find out the number of people on National Assistance, and I agree that there has been a gradual reduction in the number. On 31st October, 1956, the number was 1,635,000.
On 1st February, 1954, when the present Minister of Labour who was then Minister of Health was asked how much it would cost to cancel out altogether the payment for prescriptions, he said it would cost only £900,000 a year. Here we are in this House quibbling about spending £900,000 a year to help the sick, the infirm and the aged. Surely this nation is not too mean and parsimonious to provide that paltry sum to the old people. Many of them when they were fit and strong gave to industry, nation and to the world their strength, devotion and


courage, and apparently this is the way that we intend to treat them. However much I try, I cannot for the life of me believe that such is the case.
I plead with the Minister to take these Regulations back, to have another look at them infuse into that examination the Christian outlook. If the Minister wants any evidence of the fact that he is doing wrong, let him examine some of the newspapers. I have no desire to weary the House by quoting from them, but practically every leading newspaper, including The Times, the Manchester Guardian and the Pharmaceutical Journal, among the many that I have read, is opposed to the increase in the prescription rates. I have failed to find one newspaper which is prepared to support the Government's proposals.
I want to say a word or two about a section of the community which we are apt to forget, paraplegics, and particularly those in mining areas. Those of us who come from mining areas are aware of the great expense that has to be borne by these people.
We have just completed a survey which reveals that in the coalfields there are over 600 men who are paraplegics, men who have been bedridden for nine, ten and up to twenty years. I want the Minister to appreciate the circumstances of those men and what their illness means to their womenfolk, the wear and tear which they experience as a result of the terrible complaint which these men suffer. These poor fellows lose control of their bowels, and there is incontinence of urine. It all adds to their pain and suffering, and to the work which their womenfolk have to do in the extra washing of bed clothes. It is essential that they be kept clean.
Surely a broader and more humane view ought to be taken. If I may say so, the Government ought to have a loftier and nobler conception of human life. When they do, they will become better and more understanding statesmen of the country in which they live and which they are supposed to govern.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I have never felt greater regret at interrupting a debate than I feel now, but I find it my duty

to intervene at this stage. I am standing in the way of a flood of feeling and indignation, which has been expressed already by some of my hon. Friends, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) who I am quite sure touched every heart.
After listening to this debate, I take the view that there is not one person in this Chamber tonight who does not share our view about this charge on prescriptions. It is quite obvious from what has been said by every hon. Member on the benches opposite that each of them is trying to find some way to salve his conscience in supporting the Government. I was most disappointed by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). He knows the facts. It is quite obvious that he has been at the Minister behind the scenes, trying to press him to do something else.
It is quite unrealistic to suppose that this debate has anything to do with medical matters or with prescriptions in the sense that there is a medical reason for this charge. There is no pharmaceutical reason for it. Everybody knows that it is purely a budgetary charge. As one of my hon. Friends said, this is part of a scheme on the part of the Chancellor by which he is supposed to save £100 million. He never asked anybody whether it could be saved on health or not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) described this proposed charge quite properly as a tax. It is a sheer waste of time to discuss the matter from a medical angle or from any angle other than a tax angle. The only point is this. If one is considering levying a tax to raise £5 million, should it be levied on the sick and the maimed?
My right hon. Friend described it, quite rightly, as financial sanctions on sickness. She gave an instance where it was possible that £1 a week for prescriptions might have to be paid. Is it suggested that if one wants to raise £5 million, when there is a Budget of about £8,000 million, that extra £5 million should be levied as a tax on the sick and maimed of this country? I am quite confident there is not one single person of intelligence in this Chamber tonight who could justify such a proposition.
We know what happens, of course. One hon. Member tried to justify it by


what had been done before. But we are quite aware of what really happens: every now and then the Government feel they must make some sort of gesture of penance; it is a sort of ritual. They hit on a figure—£100 million—without any sense at all. Then, once they have hit on the figure of £100 million, they wonder who is going to pay.
Any sensible person could suggest where it could readily be saved. It could have been saved by not going into Suez. The £100 million could be saved quite easily in many ways that we could suggest. But, of course, that would not work, because the War Office would say, "Why should we provide the £100 million?". The Ministry of Pensions, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Labour must all do their share. Since it is a gesture of penance, everybody must suffer. It is the wrong person who is occupying the Minister's seat tonight. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who should be there. This Minister has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Let us see how this works. The Ministry of Labour has to out down. The only people in the Ministry of Labour are those serving the public at the counters and their service is calculated according to the weight of the population they serve. The only way, therefore, in which the Minister of Labour can save money is to cut down on the service to the public, so that the public must stand longer at the counters because the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that something should be saved in the Ministry of Labour.
When we come to education, the main expenditure is teachers' salaries and the cost of buildings. Salaries cannot be cut down because they are done by agreement. What happens, therefore, is that there is a cut on children's meals. That is the only place where the saving can be made.
When we come to the Health Service, the main item is doctors' and nurses' salaries. The reason that the Health Service went up in cost was that for the first time in history we had to pay the nurses decent salaries. When they and the doctors got a rise in salary, up went the cost of the Health Service. Does any Member opposite object? If so, let him rise and say so.
For a generation, the nurses were exploited. Even now, they are not getting the conditions, the leisure or the relief that they ought to get. Nurses have always been giving service from their vocational interest in their work, but for generations they were exploited. What we did was to raise their salaries, and that, of course, raised the cost of the Health Service considerably.
Quite obviously, therefore, these abitrary economies make nonsense from any sensible point of view. In the Health Service, we are told that expenditure must be reduced. The order to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotland is that they must find £5 million. I have been at the job and I know what happens. We cannot reduce doctors' or nurses' salaries, so then we come to the patients. The whole service exists for the patients, but the service to the patient is being cut down. It does not exist for the doctors or the nurses, but for the sick; yet the service to the sick is being cut down to save a few paltry millions against a huge Budget.
The doctors can prescribe fewer drugs and items or patients can have fewer prescriptions. The hon. Member for Putney said that nothing should be done to interfere with doctors prescribing what patients need.

Sir Frederick Messer: This is doing it.

Mr. Woodburn: That is what this shilling will do, because the doctor now has to consider whether his patient can afford it. Therefore, an obstacle is being placed between doctor and patient. It does not affect the well-to-do patient. I feel very indignant about the whole business of charging for prescriptions. Almost from the year I was born, I was into a friendly society run by ordinary people and I do not think I ever paid for a prescription in my life. It has had to come now because of this silly budgetary idea of the Treasury that money must be saved in every Department.
If the doctor is to be able freely to prescribe what the patient needs, all charges must be abolished, unless we are to deter people from going for prescriptions. Do the Government want to deter patients from going to their doctors? The doctors tell us that that is the worst thing to do, because if patients do not


go for the little things, they have to bear the cost of the big things and of the suffering that comes.
Before the Health Service was introduced most men had been covered for something like 50 years and it was the women and children who were penalised. Equally it is the women and children who are being penalised now more than the men. The women do not go for medical treatment because they want to save their families' budgets. We are returning to the circumstances of before the war, when women suffered in health because they saved their families' budgets by not spending enough upon their own health. Everybody here knows that, and everybody feels it on his conscience, for it was and it is wrong.
One hon. Member said this was a reflection on the doctors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington cannot say what I am going to say. There is no doubt that there is a small minority of the doctors who have not behaved honourably by their profession in dealing with prescriptions. A doctor friend of mine went into a chemist's shop and the chemist showed him £5 worth of prescriptions on the counter which could have been got for 5s. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland a man brought me a roll of lint as long and as thick as my arm, and it had been prescribed for a cut finger. The B.M.A. could do nothing about it because it was very difficult to get anybody to come forward to give the evidence.
No doubt there are some doctors who have not been playing the game. They are doctors of the sort who have rich patients who read about some new or, at any rate, expensive cure used in America and want their doctors to prescribe it for them. They are patients who threaten their doctors. They threaten that if their doctors do not prescribe what they want they will go to other doctors. Something has to be done to protect the decent doctors who want to do decently by the National Health Service, and I hope the Minister will try to take steps to that end.
We are told we must not tell doctors what to prescribe, but every doctor gets a list of medicines which are the equivalents of the proprietary medicines for which huge prices are charged. I remember somebody gave me one of those

prescriptions for a very elaborate medicine. I spoke to a doctor friend of mine, and he said "Listen, you can get the same good from a twopenny zinc ointment." That is the sort of waste that takes place. There is a vested interest in selling these expensive things, and the chemists share in it, because there is more profit to be made out of them than out of a twopenny package of boracic. I hope that is not why the hon. Member for Putney spoke in support of these new charges.
The Government are by this proposal raising the equivalent of £5 million of taxation in a year, and they are doing it through the sick alone. Whoever heard of any Chancellor of the Exchequer who could justify taxing the sick alone? I have never heard of it. It seems to me preposterous. What is the cost to the rest of us? It is a matter of a halfpenny a week. Do the Government mean to say the British public want to save a halfpenny a week at the expense of the sick, the maimed, the injured? My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) has described them. This proposal is past understanding. I do not think anybody in this Chamber tonight really believes in it at all.
The Chancellor says, "Oh, but they can get the money back if they go through a means test." Has he really imagined what it means to ask these sick people to go through a means test? I have been X-rayed, and I felt very sorry for myself until I saw some of the other poor souls being X-rayed. Then I felt I was all right. How can the right hon. Gentleman suggest that those poor souls should go tramping about the streets or travelling in buses to get to the National Assistance Board when they are suffering in mind and body? There is nobody with any humanity at all who would ever suggest such a thing. I simply do not believe that the Minister of Health believes in this at all. I am sure he has nothing to do with it, but he has to defend the proposals of the Government to which he belongs.
What has staggered us in the last few weeks, and what I have not before seen in Parliament, is how so many hon. Members opposite out of party loyalty have stilled their own consciences on fundamental matters. I hope that tonight, at


least, they will not still their consciences. I remember something Jimmy Maxton said in this House. He said he knew hon. Members opposite, and he knew that he could go to any one of them to get money to help anybody in difficulty. He said that individually they were the kindest people in the world, but collectively, in a matter of this kind, they seemed to develop a most curious mob psychology. At that time, he said, they were downing the waitresses. Now they are downing the sick. That is not what a great nation does. It is not what a great party should do. It is not what Members of Parliament should do. We are here to protect the weak and the maimed.
I say to every hon. Member opposite, "Do not still your consciences. Come into the Lobby with us if the Minister is not going to endorse this Prayer to Her Majesty to annul these Regulations." I ask the Minister to take upon himself the responsibility to go to the Chancellor and tell him to raise the money in some other way. The rest of us are quite willing to pay one-halfpenny a week in order that the sick shall not suffer more.
I ask the Minister to take upon himself the responsibility of withdrawing these Regulations and not to rise with a prepared speech to discuss all the pharmaceutical details and the piffling quibbles that we have heard tonight. This whole proposition is humbug, it is a piece of fraudulent budgetary imposition on the poor and the sick of the nation.

9.46 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): Hon. Members have put forward in the debate the real apprehensions of their constituents and I will try to deal with those apprehensions. There has also been in the debate, and I regret it, an attempt by some right hon. and hon. Members to make party capital out of this matter. I acquit the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). I thought the tone of her speech was quite unexceptionable, but the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was forgetting a good deal of history when he was Secretary of State for Scotland and a good many of the problems.
I have tried, and I shall continue to try as long as I hold this office, to keep

health out of party politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Chancellor did not."] However much hon. Members opposite jeer I shall go on trying. I intend to keep health out of party politics. There is no Conservative health, no Socialist health and no Liberal health. There is good health. Hon. Members can take with them what credit they like, but I have to administer this Health Service.

Mr. C. A. Howell: Only to the extent that the Chancellor will let the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Turton: I have to see that there is no extravagance and that all the Service is administered properly. That is the problem, and that is why, in the present financial emergency, I have to see whether there can be any increased contribution from the Health Service or any saving on expenditure.
I have looked round the whole of the branches of the Service. We are constantly trying to avoid wasteful expenditure, and I am quite certain that there is no possible way of reducing expenditure, without closing beds or reducing service, except the present alteration of the prescription charge.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been most courteous to me and have said through the debate, "This is not the decision of the Minister of Health." But I believe that this is the right decision in order to raise this money. Why have we chosen to raise this £5 million, the alteration in the charge?
It is because our experience has gone to show that it was this very vital pant of the Service in which the general practitioner was most involved and where the greatest load had fallen, and that the Service was inclined in some respect not to give the standard of service we wanted from it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470. c. 2260.]
Those words were used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in December, 1949, to justify this very charge.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Party politics.

Mr. Turton: It is sometimes forgotten in debate that this is a problem which has faced successive Ministers. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman that at that time he and his Government came to that decision. In October, 1949, when Lord Attlee was Prime Minister, he


announced that £10 million would be obtained from charges when in England and Wales the cost per item was 3s., the total drug bill was £30 million, and the total cost of the National Health Service falling on the Exchequer was £340 million. What are the facts today?

Mr. H. A. Marquand: What were the facts two years later, in 1951? Did I not say then, standing at the Box opposite, that
… the charge would inevitably fall, whatever exemptions were made, repeatedly and regularly on the chronic sick and ailing"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 239.]
That is why, after two years' reflection, we did not levy this charge.

Mr. Turton: All I wanted to show was the conclusion reached and the method chosen. What are the facts today?

Dr. Stross: rose—

Mr. Turton: I cannot give way. I did not interrupt, though I was greatly tempted. I have sat on this bench all the evening without interrupting, knowing there was very little time for the debate, and that interruptions would spoil it.
The facts are that in 1949 there were 200 million items. The estimated income from the charge announced by Lord Attlee in the House of Commons was £10 million, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite can tell me how we can get £10 million out of 200 million items except by charging 1s. an item, then I will stand corrected.
What is the position today? My estimate this year was for a cost per item of 4s. 6d. The total drug bill will be found in my estimate as £53 million. I must tell the House that today it appears that the cost per item will be, on an average, 5s. The total drug bill will be £61 million, and the total National Health Service bill falling on the Exchequer will be £475 million.
I was very grateful to the right hon. Lady for that part of her speech dealing with the cost of the pharmaceutical service, and I entirely agree with her that the growing increase in that cost is a most serious problem. Successive Governments have failed to find a solution to it. I also agree with her that a large part of the additional cost is due to the

new and comparatively expensive drugs which have been developed and made available for treatment in recent years.
No one would wish to deprive patients of treatment with those drugs. Many of them are of great value—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not all."]—for treating conditions which previously could not be treated and for restoring patients to health. The difficulty is that these new treatments have to be paid for. The medical profession, and expert advisory committees which have reported on the question, take the view that there should be no interference with the right of a doctor to prescribe whatever he considers necessary.
I accept that principle. That was the main difficulty that I found in listening to the right hon. Lady's speech on that point. I must not interfere with the doctor's right to prescribe, but I can assure the House that I am actively considering ways in which we can reduce the cost. Already, we provide doctors with the National Formulary and with the small brochure which the right hon. Lady produced, the "Preservers' Notes," which draw attention to the published reports on treatment, the prices of preparations and other matters which will help doctors to prescribe effectively and with economy.
I believe that we must do more. I am sure that we must educate the young doctor so that he knows more about economical prescribing. I believe that we have also to go into the question—here I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady—of the pressure of the salesmanship of the drug houses and the other pressures to which a doctor is subjected. I shall give early consideration to further ways of dealing with that part of the problem.
On the pharmaceutical side, with the co-operation of the pharmaceutical manufacturers we have made inquiries into the prices of standard and proprietary drugs. The general level of prices of standard drugs was not considered to call for intervention by the Department, but I am continuing discussions at present on the prices of proprietary preparations. Discussions are also proceeding with the chemists about an inquiry into the prices paid by them for standard drugs as compared with the prices fixed by the Drug


Tariff. The chemists have now agreed to co-operate in such an inquiry in the spring. Meanwhile, we have to face the increased cost this year and next year, for I anticipate that next year there will be a drug bill of about £64 million.
I have turned to a charge of 1s. an item instead of 1s. a form for the following reason. When Lord Crookshank introduced the charge in 1952 as 1s. a form, the effect was very considerably to increase the number of items put on each form. In this connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) has referred to para. 588 of
the Guillebaud Report. It was a very considerable increase. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) said, that in the handbook doctors are asked to put only two items on the form. A recent survey that we made showed that five-sixths of the forms had one or two items each, while one-sixth, probably more than 20 million forms, had more than two items and some as many as eight or nine.

Mrs. Braddock: For what type of patient are they?

Mr. Turton: That is the point on which I disagree with hon. Members opposite. Among the patients involved are what are called "shopping list patients", whose doctors are being induced to stock up the patients' medicine cupboards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who induced them?"] I have listened to the debate without interrupting. Hon. Members doubt that fact, but the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire himself underlined it. How can they deny that?
What I want hon. Members to realise is that the present system, as at present operated, is creating gross inequality. On the one hand are doctors who abide by the request in the handbook that there should be only two items on the form, and the patients are paying 1s. every time they have a prescription. On the other hand, where what one might call the weaker doctors put a large number of items on a form, there are patients getting a large number of items for only 1s.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of what the Minister has said, will he say why the

patient should be punished for what the doctor does on the form.

Mr. Turton: That is not the position. I want hon. Members to think of two different patients suffering from the same remedy—[Laughter.]; I had better retract that now in view of what the British Medical Association may say tomorrow—I mean, suffering from the same illness and requiring the same remedy. One goes to a doctor who abides by the handbook and who cuts down the items to two on the form and gives the patient three forms so that the patient has to pay 3s. Another patient goes to a doctor who puts all six items on one form as a result of which his patient has to pay only 1s.
Which is the more deserving patient? There is that inequality and there is another inequality in the system. There are very many patients—[An HON. MEMBER: "Call in a psychiatrist."]—who are most deserving. There are many patients who are on a one-item prescription which
continually requires to be renewed and who cannot be given doses to last a long time. Which are they?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the Minister not agree—

Mr. Turton: Among patients—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, to cast such serious reflections on a dignified profession without substantiation?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in that.

Mr. Turton: Among patients in that category are many suffering from the following chronic illnesses: high blood pressure, pernicious anaemia, insomnia, and some of the cardiac conditions. In some of these cases the patients have their prescriptions weekly or fortnightly and pay 52s. or 26s. in the course of the year. Compared with what others pay, that is a very large sum in the year.
It would clearly be quite wrong that those people should pay any more, and they will in fact not have to pay a penny more on their prescriptions. According to my survey, on half the prescriptions today there will not be one penny increase and it is my contention that the vast majority of the cases about whom the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard)


was talking will not have to pay the increase, because they are now on one-item prescriptions—[An HON. MEMBER: "The chronic sick?"]—the chronic sick.
Hon. Members mentioned other illnesses and I want to deal in particular with those. First, I would mention the diabetics. During the course of a year the diabetic will require insulin, a syringe, spare needles, cotton wool, surgical spirit and a reagent. There are two types of insulin, but under the Regulations both types come within the 1s. prescription charge. If the diabetic condition is stabilised all these can be prescribed at two-or three-monthly intervals. At present, if all the items are put on the same form, as compared with the 52s. or the 26s. which the chronic cardiac case pays, the diabetic pays 6s. or 4s. Under the Regulations he will pay 27s. or 17s. a year. That is still a good deal less than will be paid by the chronic cases that I have mentioned.
Hon. Members opposite mentioned the colostomy cases. I agree that they are very difficult. They require monthly or two-monthly supplies of cellulose wadding, cotton wool and plastic bags, and the replacement of appliances. At present, the colostomy case pays either 12s. or 6s. a year in 1s. prescription forms. Under the system which I am introducing in
these Regulations he will pay 36s. or 18s. a year. He is the most difficult of the chronic sick cases, but even under the Regulations he will be paying less than the chronic cardiac who is now paying 52s. a year.
The cost of the pharmaceutical service has doubled since 1949. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) said, except for the 10d. per week for a man, the 8d. per week for a woman and the 6d. per week for a boy or girl, which come from the National Insurance system—which represents only £36 million in a year—and the £28 million from superannuation, the remaining £500 million has to come from the Exchequer and from charges. At this time of financial emergency this extra £5 million has to be found, and I believe that it can be found better by this means than by any other.
I now turn to the question of hardship. If I hold the view which I have just put forward I must see to it that this system

is brought in with the least hardship to the most deserving cases. I entirely agree with what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said—that is it is the low, fixed-income group which must be specially considered. First, I have made it possible in the Regulations for medicine or tablets to be put into two or three containers, and be subject only to the charge of 1s. That will mean that, if he so decides, a doctor may prescribe for a considerable period ahead. This will enable doctors in, for example, diabetic cases to prescribe for a three-monthly period.
It has been suggested by the right hon. Lady opposite that this is an encouragement to over-prescribing. I think that is a misunderstanding of the problem. Under this system the amount prescribed per year per patient will be no more than if the prescribing were done over a shorter interval. I am here dealing with the chronically-ill patients. They are the ones I want to help and by this method of prescribing over a longer period they will not be paying any more.
Over-prescribing is where a doctor prescribes more expensively than is necessary for the proper treatment of the patient. This is a matter that is determined by the local medical committees. In fact, by taking away the inducement to add unnecessary items to the same form, over-prescribing is being actively discouraged.

Mr. Hubbard: Is the Minister not aware that the dosage of insulin for diabetic cases varies from week to week, that one cannot prescribe for a lengthy period? The same thing applies all the way through these illnesses.

Mr. Turton: I was dealing with the case of the diabetic whose condition is stabilised. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right if the condition is not stabililised. Then, of course, it is different.
I am providing in the Regulations for certain composite packs to be charged at 1s. Examples of these packs are the syringe and spare needles for diabetics, the vaporiser set for bronchitis patients and the multiple pack dressings for minor wounds. The conditions governing the creation of multiple packs are that the articles must be frequently prescribed at the same time and sufficiently often prescribed to make it worth while for the manufacturers to make up the


packs. Those are the steps that I have taken. I have asked the British Medical Association whether it can suggest any further multiple packs, and if any are suggested I will at once approach the manufacturers.
The normal way of relieving hardship is through the National Assistance Board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am surprised at hon. Members doubting that because it was made absolutely clear when I was a back bencher and when the right hon. Lady opposite was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. When we were dealing with similar questions of hardship we were always told that National Assistance was the normal way of dealing with such cases.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has compared what he is doing now with what I did. Never in my life would I allow myself to stand at the Dispatch Box and argue the case for taxing colostomies who have an expectation of life of perhaps a year or two.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Turton: I thought that hon. Members wanted to take part in the debate. If they interrupt it will take longer. If they do not wish to listen to me there is a very easy remedy; they can always go out.
Last year, over 9 million prescription charges were refunded. The method has worked very smoothly since 1952, but I have now made arrangements for improving the machinery of National Assistance. With the co-operation of the National Assistance Board, the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Labour and National Service, the following alterations are being made. First, from 1st December persons receiving National Assistance will be able to take their receipts straight from the chemist's shop to the Post Office.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Suppose that they cannot go out.

Mr. Turton: Then they would not be in the chemist's shop. In that event, whoever goes to the chemist's shop would do it. This will mean that they will not have to wait. They can go at once, and need pot wait until the day when their National Assistance grant, their unemployment

assistance or their supplementary pension is normally paid. They will avoid the delay which has sometimes proved irksome.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington had some critical remarks to make about the notices we put up in the chemists' shops. They were a reproduction of the ones previously used, with very slight alterations. That is why elastic hosiery had so many mentions. In fact, there is no alteration at all in the charge for elastic hosiery.
The alteration I have made, with the help of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, is that in the chemists' shops there will be a small new leaflet which will have on it a place for the name and address of the person who wishes to apply to get a refund. That can be taken straight away and put in the post box and it will go to the National Assistance Office. That will mean that the person will not have to travel to the office. I emphasise that. A visit will be paid from the National Assistance office. Nobody will have to go to the National Assistance office.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is there any arrangement about how they will pay? Will the money be sent by post? How will it be done?

Mr. Turton: The person on National Assistance will go direct to the post office. He will hand in his receipt and get the money. In the other case, there has first to be an inquiry and then the money will be paid at the post office.

Mr. Shurmer: More officers will be needed.

Mr. Turton: That will not be so. The method is exactly the same. The hon. Member knows the smooth way in which the National Assistance officers do their work.

Mr. Shurmer: Yes, but it is the additional numbers I am thinking about.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman but I should like to understand what he means. May I take it that where an applicant posts his application the Assistance Board will send direct to him? The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be an inquiry. Does he mean that


a visitor will have to go and inquire first, and then make his report back to the Board?

Mr. Turton: I am dealing first with somebody who is already on National Assistance. He will go to the post office and get the money. If somebody is not on National Assistance and wants to claim a refund he will post the leaflet to the National Assistance office, and the National Assistance officer will visit him and talk to him in his own home so as to save him from having to travel.
The third improvement affects the case where somebody is on a margin and where the charges will bring him just below the scale. In all cases the refund will be the whole amount of the receipt from the chemist.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of what he is suggesting. He has already agreed with me about this. When I made my speech he nodded when I told him of the analysis of these cases and how the worst were the diabetics, epileptics, and those suffering from such things as heart disease, anaemia, and ulcers. Is he suggesting that these chronic patients can write to the Assistance Board and that an official from the Board will visit them to discuss whether they are able to pay?

Mr. Turton: That is why we have done this in the form of a leaflet. All that has 'to be done is to put the name and address and send the form to the National Assistance Board, and the Board will then make inquiries. If it is an obvious case of hardship such as the right hon. Lady suggests, there will be immediate payment.

Mr Shurmer: rose—

Mr. Turton: I think I ought to get on with my speech.

Mr. Shurmer: This is an important matter. We know exactly the position of people on National Assistance, but the Minister knows full well, or ought to know, how long it takes for these visits to be made. Some of us who live in back-streets know that it takes the National Assistant Board's officers all their time to visit the applicants for National Assistance once every three or four months.

The officers will get hundreds of additional cases which are above the National Assistance Board's scale where application is being made for prescription refund. He will need many more National Assistance Board officers to visit these homes.

Mr. Turton: Let us see. All I can say is that the Assistance Board will deal promptly with every application.

Mrs. Braddock: May I ask the Minister a question about the payment?

Mr. Turton: I think I have given way enough on that subject. I will continue to watch most closely this question of hardship both for those in the fixed income group and for those on National Assistance. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not agree with me about this charge. We may have different views about how it will work out. But I want hon. Members on all sides to give me assistance and advice in trying to remove the difficulties and hardship.
I believe that as a result of the suggestions which I have made, for instance about the longer prescribing, there will not be the results which hon. Members fear. Let hon. Members co-operate by writing to me if any cases of hardship are found which are not dealt with under the Regulations
or by the National Assistance Board. After a time has elapsed, I want to hear about cases of constituents which right hon. and hon. Members find.
Some of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate have referred to what I regard as hard cases—those who will pay more than the chronic cardiac about whom I spoke and who is now paying 52s. a year. I believe that much of this feeling that many people will suffer hardship overlooks one fact. It is true that people will be getting a prescription sometimes costing 5s. or 6s., but it will last them a considerable time. If hon. Members find cases in which people pay more than 50s. or 60s. in the year, I hope that they will write to me and give me examples of those cases.

Mrs. Braddock: Those people will be dead by then.

Mr. Turton: I want to hear about these cases so that hardship shall not exist.
Let us look at the matter in its proper perspective. The full burden of the charge on the pharmaceutical service after 1st December will be about 1¼d. per person per week in this country. At present, it is about ¾d. per person per week. When he was dealing with a similar proposal in 1949, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said:
Let us look at the actual facts. It is not the National Health Service /that would be making a charge to the patient. It is the National Health Service that would be saying to the patient: 'Where a doctor has given you a prescription that costs more than a shilling, National Health Service will pay the cost above a shilling, but up to the shilling you will pay'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December. 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2261.]
I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's presentation of the case. There is another way of putting it—and I put this to the House. This charge is, in fact, less than the average dispensing fee in respect of each item. The drug or the appliance is, therefore, absolutely free to the patient—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen prefer the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. I was quoting from HANSARD. I think that now, in

a time of grave economic difficulty, we can take comfort in the fact that we are asking patients to pay only the cost of dispensing, and that they are receiving the drugs and appliances free from the Service. No other Health Service in the world gives better service. I believe that hon. Members on all side take pride in that fact, and wish to help me to improve that Service.

Mr. Woodburn: Does not the Minister's speech, and all the speeches that have come from that side of the House, start from the assumption that this will cause great hardship; and has he not joined all his other hon. Friends in trying to use all sorts of different quibbles by which he can avoid the hardship that the charge will cause? Would it not have been simpler not to have had the charge to start with?

Mr. Turton: The answer is that the Regulations seek to remedy abuse now occurring in the Health Service. At the same time, I shall do my best to remove any hardship that occurs.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 303.

Division No. 13.]
AYES
[10.25 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hamilton, W. W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Daines, P.
Hannan, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hastings, S.


Baird, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hayman, F. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Healey, Denis


Benoe, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Herbison, Miss M.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Deer, G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Benson, G.
de Freltas, Geoffrey
Hobson, C. R.


Beswick, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Holman, P.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dodds, N. N.
Holmes, Horace


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Houghton, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Dye, S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Edelman, M.
Hubbard, T. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brookway, A. F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hunter, A. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fienburgh, W.
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Burke, W. A.
Finch, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Erio
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Forman, J. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)


Carmichael, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Chapman, W. D.
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Clunie, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Grey, C. F.
Kenyon, C.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
King, Dr. H. M.


Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Lawson, G. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)
Grimond, J.
Ledger, R. J.


Cronin, J. D.
Hale, Leslie
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)




Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Lindgren, G. S.
Paton, John
Sylvester, G. O.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


MacColl, J. E.
Pentland, N.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McGhee, H. C.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McInnes, J.
Popplewell, E.
Thornton, E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Timmons, J.


McLeavy, Frank
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)
Tomney, F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Probert, A. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Manon, Simon
Proctor, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pryde, D. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Randall, H. E.
Weitzman, D.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rankin, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mayhew, C. P.
Redhead, E. C.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mellish, R. J.
Reeves, J.
West, D. G.


Messer, Sir F.
Reid, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mikardo, lan
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Monslow, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wigg, George


Moody, A. S.
Rosa, William
Willey, Frederick


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Royle, C.
Williams, David (Neath)


Moss, R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mulley, F. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Skefflngton, A. M.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Oliver, G. H.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Oram, A. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Orbach, M.
Snow, J. W.
Winterboottom, Richard


Oswald, T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Owen, W. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woof, R. E.


Padley, W. E.
Sparks, J. A.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Stones, W. (Consett)
Zilliacus, K.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.



Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Mr. Short and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Erroll, F. J.


Aitken, W. T.
Burden, F. F. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fell, A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Finlay, Graeme


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
Fisher, Nigel


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cans, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Fort, R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir lan (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Ashton, N.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Freeth, D. K.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Atkins, H. E.
Cole, Norman
Gibson-Watt, D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Glover, D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper, A. E.
Godber, J. B.


Balniel, Lord
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gough, C. F. H.


Barber, Anthony
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gower, H. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Barter, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Green, A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crouch, R. F.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoott)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Cunningham, Knox
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Currie, G. B. H.
Gurden, Harold


Bidgood, J. C.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Black, C. W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Body, R. F.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hay, John


Braine, B. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duthie, W. S.
Hesketh, R. F.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Eocles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bryan, P.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hirst, Geoffrey
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Renton, D. L. M.


Hope, Lord John
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Hornby, R. P.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Horobin, Sir Ian
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
MacMillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.


Howard, John (Test)
Maddan, Martin
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hughes Hallen, Vice-Admiral J.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Sharples, R. C.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Shepherd, William


Hurd, A. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Marlowe, A, A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Marples, A. E.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hyde, Montgomery
Marshall, Douglas
Soames, Capt. C.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Maude, Angus
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Iremonger, T. L.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Speir, R. M.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mawby, R. L.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Moison, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Storey, S.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kaberry, D.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Keegan, D.
Neave, Airey
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Nicholls, Harmar
Teeling, W.


Kimball, M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Temple, J. M.


Kirk, P. M.
Nicolson N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lagden, G. W.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Lambton, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Leavey, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Leburn, W. G.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Legh, Hon. peter (Petersfield)
Page, R. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Vosper, D. F.


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wakefield Sir Wavell (St M'lebone)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitman, I. J.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Pott, H, P.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, J, Enoch
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lucas, P. B (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Profumo, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


McAdden, S. J.
Ralkes, Sir Victor
Woollam, John Victor


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ramsden, J. E.



Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McKibbin, A. J.
Redmayne, M.
Mr. Heath and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

UNIVERSITY AWARDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

10.37 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I am grateful for this opportunity of bringing before the House the important question of awards to university students. I say honestly at the start that the purpose of this exercise is to try to persuade the Minister to appoint a working party for a full-scale review of the whole problem of university awards. I do so because the last full-scale investigation was eight years ago, in 1948. I do so also because we are now facing several important developments in the next few years. For instance, as was announced in the House last week, we are facing a 26 per cent. university expansion, from 84,000 students to 106,000 students in the next 10 years.
We are facing also what has been termed the two-headed monster of the trend and the bulge. When we talk about the trend we notice two tendencies, the tendency of the number of pupils staying on after 15 to increase, and the tendency of the growth of sixth forms in our grammar schools. This, of course, will make a tremendous impression on the number of potential university students. It will be noticed that the bulge has moved out of the primary schools and is now in the secondary stream. It is reckoned that over the next ten years it will amount to an increase of 15 per cent. in the number of university students.
Scientific and technological developments, not only in this country but all over the world, and the resulting need for scientists and technologists, emphasise the necessity for reviewing university awards. A reappraisal of local government finance is taking place and coincident with that should go a reappraisal of the finances of education, including university awards.
My main theme deals with the two main problems which would have to be reviewed by such a working party. The first is the value of the awards and the second is the selection of students. A third could have been the means test, but I Shall not develop that tonight. In education debates in the past, I have already expounded my very strong views

about the means test. I should like to see it abolished, but that is a long-term policy and I want to deal with the two matters which can be considered at once.
It is pleasing to note that there has been a striking acceleration in the process of persuading local education authorities to adopt the major recommendations of the state scholarship assessment. For instance, in April this year my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was able to announce at Leeds that practically 100 per cent. adoption of the term and time rates had been secured. That compares very favourably with 1952. In passing, I want to commend the Minister, his Department and local education authorities for the vast progress made in that direction.
I am not here to shoot at targets but wish to approach the matter in a reasoned way in order to persuade the Minister to appoint a working party. I have no intention of singling out recalcitrant authorities, or anything like that. However, even with this general basic advance, some local education authorities are not measuring up to the job. As a practical teacher, I know that we have to look after sub-normal children, average children, good children and brilliant children. The best investment we can make is to adopt the principle that the best brains are also the care of the State. It is a jolly good insurance and part of the task of local education authorities.
When it comes to minor recommendations, allowances like the instrument allowance, vacation allowance and dependants' allowance, the story is not so good. Forty-four authorities do not pay an instrument allowance, thirty-eight do not pay a vacation allowance and forty-one do not pay a dependents' allowance. Here the picture is one of financial inequality.
The next inequality is that of the selection of students. The basis has been laid down for years and advice on the selection of students for major awards has been given by the Ministry. For instance, in 1948, at the last general review, the Working Party on University Awards recommended that the minimum standard should be that of having been accepted by a university and having reached advanced standard in two subjects in the General Certificate of Education. In 1950, it was again recommended to local education authorities, in the


Memorandum of Procedure from the Ministry. In 1953, it was re-emphasised in an Agreed Note of Procedure from the Minister and, in the same year. Circular 263 issued by the Minister supported that minimum standard. In July, 1955, the Report of the Sub-Committee on University Entrants Requirements—a university report—recommended as a minimum standard two subjects at advanced level.
In spite of those standards, recommended first by the Minister and then by the universities, progress towards securing uniformity among local education authorities has been very slow. For instance, in 1956–56 three local education authorities preferred candidates who could offer three advanced subjects and two scholarship papers for the G.C.E. Ten preferred them to offer, in addition to the usual advanced subjects, one or more scholarship papers; 20 asked for three advanced level subjects, and 84 for the minimum standard of two. At the other end of the scale, there were four authorities who made awards if the student was accepted by a university. What I should like to see is uniformity of selection as between area and area.
Every three years the Ministry reviews the award of grants to university students, and the next triennial assessment is in 1958. Some of us think that the time is now opportune to look into the whole question of grants for the triennial assessment. I have no doubt that the Ministry and its officials and the local education authorities are looking at this question already, but now is the time for us to start making a thorough appreciation of the situation.
That is why I emphasise the need for a working party to advise the Minister and give him material for the steps he will have to take, so that Government plans for university expansion can be properly implemented. As a cardinal principle, we must ensure that the right people get the right aid at the right time, and that there is reasonable uniformity of opportunity as between area and area. A quick decision is needed. Now is the time to act, and a working party is the answer.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) both on raising this subject and on the very persuasive way in which he put his case.

It is very important that the views he has expressed should be expressed from the benches opposite, and I value the fact that they should also come from a prominent member of the National Union of Teachers. I rise only to support what he has said—and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to do so—and to say that I also welcome the improvement which has occurred in recent years, for which credit is due to the Minister and also to the National Union of Students for their work in this field and for making the evidence available of the need for these grants.
At the same time, there are considerable anomalies in the arrangement of local education authority awards. I believe that it is impossible to devise any scheme which will do away with all the difficulties. I was very greatly encouraged by Circular 315, recently put out by the Minister, telling us of the new arrangements for post-graduate awards. It seems to me that some similar arrangement, with the emphasis on a central award-giving body, is necessary it we are really to tackle the job of providing adequate and sufficient grants in order to get the right numbers of the right people in the universities.
We have heard a lot of talk about the need for more technologists and technicians. I believe that this is too big a job to leave to the very varied interests and resources of local authorities, and I therefore add my word to that of the hon. Member in asking the Minister if he will set up a working part or committee to examine the possibilities of some central award-giving body. As the hon. Member says, the review of awards is shortly to take place, and it seems to me that that might be one of the terms of reference given to a body charged with making recommendations.
I therefore ask the Minister, if he cannot give us an answer tonight, to assure us that he is at least sympathetic to this idea. It is not a new one; I have expressed it several times in this House because I have tried to take an interest in the subject over the years. It has been the policy of the National Union of Students for many years that the matter should be dealt with by some central body rather than be left to the mercies of individual local education authorities. Some of these have been very generous,


but others, I am afraid, have not kept to the same standard.

10.50 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I do not wish to detain the House for very long because I and other hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister's reply, in particular to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) that a working party should be set up to look into this question of university awards. All I wish to do is to add a very brief support to the suggestion that a working party should be established.
I realise very well that, in fact, a working party will be set up next summer to go into the question of the triennial review, and I very much hope that that working party will be able to emulate the recommendations which were put forward by its predecessors and which enabled considerable reductions to be made in allowances and parental contributions and for an increase to be made in the scale of grants.
As I see it, the point of university awards is to enable any person who is worthy of a university education to take a university course irrespective of his financial background and to be able to carry through that course without suffering hardship. That is not happening at the moment. As any hon. Member with a constituency correspondence knows, a considerable number of persons who are perfectly capable of taking a university course are not able to do so through lack of means.
The universities are becoming increasingly concerned at the growing number of students who, if they were able to go to university, would probably attain a second-class honours, but who are not able to do so through lack of means. I fear that we are returning to a position which was criticised in the following words by a Working Party on University Awards as long ago as 1948. It said:
The arrangement for determining the value of individual awards sometimes demands sacrifices from parents in certain income groups which may be more than they should be called on to bear.
I very much hope that this working party will be able to increase the allowances

and decrease the parental contributions. But the points which my hon. Friend was making will not be covered by that working party. Its terms of reference are much too limited. My hon. Friend has already referred to some of the difficulties which are being experienced in the running of university awards. He has referred to the inequalities between the various local authorities, and they are very real indeed.
I know that the exhortations of my right hon. Friend have induced most local authorities to exercise their powers and to give grants. None the less, the fact remains that there are eight local education authorities which refuse to make any grants at all. I agree that that number represents a mere handful out of the total of 146 authorities in the country. Nevertheless, if one is a student or a parent living in one of those eight areas the hardship is very real indeed, and it is depriving people who might otherwise be able to go to university of the chance of receiving a university education.
Local authorities vary in generosity. The chances of receiving a grant if one lives in certain counties, for instance in the West Riding, are very much less than if one lives in Lancashire or another county of comparable wealth. They also vary in their methods. Some local authorities will not give a grant if one is already at a university. Others will give a grant only if one has passed successfully the first-year examination. As my hon. Friend pointed out, they also vary very considerably in the demands they make for academic excellence. Some demand two passes in the advanced G.C.E. Others demand three passes.
It would be regrettable if the power of giving these grants were taken out of the hands of the local education authorities. Some of them have advanced at a far greater pace than others and many of them really do not know what is expected of them. Many which are in fact parsimonious imagine that they are acting in a very generous manner. I suggest that a working party to look into the question would be able to advocate a standard which would be of the very greatest help to local education authorities.

10.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has raised what I consider to be an important subject. I am glad that he has done so, because it is about two years since this subject was ventilated even as fully as is possible in a limited debate of this nature.
I think it would be as well to be clear on the statutory position to begin with. Those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate probably realise that my right hon. Friend's power is derived from Section 100 of the Education Act, 1944. This requires him to make regulations providing for the payment of sums which will enable pupils
… to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them. …
I quote that because my hon. Friend referred to the possible abolition of the means test. That would not be possible without amending legislation, but I hope to say something further about that later on. Section 81 of the same Act empowers the Minister to make regulations which grant similar powers to local education authorities, with similar limitations.
As I think all hon. Members have pointed out, there has been considerable progress in this sphere since the Education Act was put on the Statute Book. In 1955, no fewer than 15,900 students—I think these are new figures—holding either Ministry or local authority awards went to the universities for the first time. This compares with a total entry to the English and Welsh universities of rather more than 18,000 United Kingdom based students. A quick calculation will tell hon. Members that in 1955 well over 80 per cent. of people entering universities were receiving grants from statutory sources.
The figure of 15,900 is made up of 3,400 State scholars and 12,500 local authority award holders. The number of awards given by local education authorities has been rising steadily in recent years and has more than kept pace with the increased intake into the universities. In 1955, the L.E.A. awards totalled 12,500; in 1951, they totalled 10,000. That is an increase of 25 per cent. in

four years. This is a considerable increase.
Tonight, hon. Members have been rather more concerned with local education authority awards than with State awards. The hon. Member for Burton dealt separately with selection and with the granting of the awards. I propose to follow him, starting with the grants and the awards themselves. He referred to Circular 285, issued about 18 months ago, wherein my right hon. Friend expressed his view that it is most desirable that all students attending a particular university should, so far as possible, receive grants at the same rates and on the same basis of assessment. My hon. Friend referred to my speech at Leeds, when I said that only a small number of authorities had not come into line. I am very pleased tonight to go much further than that and to say, and I think it is the first time it has been announced, that every local authority has now come into line as far as awards and the basis of assessment is concerned. It is a very great improvement on the position four or five years ago.
I realise that my hon. Friend also referred to things like vacation allowances, instrument allowances and other allowances, such as those for dependants, but in the same Circular my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was leaving as much as possible to the discretion of local authorities in these matters in the belief that they are better able to judge the needs of the students. The question of uniformity in these matters has never been pressed to the same extent as it has been for rates of grant and methods of assessment. But even here there has been a considerable advance towards uniformity.
My information regarding vacation allowances is slightly different to my hon. Friend's information. He said that there were 38 authorities who do not pay them; my information is that there are only 25 who do not pay in full, but who make some contribution. The same applies to allowances for instruments and dependants. As far as vacation allowances are concerned, 96 out of 146 also adopt my right hon. Friend's practice of paying a vacation grant at a higher rate where the university certifies that it is needed. And so, although my right hon. Friend did not press for uniformity in


respect of these minor allowances, there have been considerable advances.
I should like here to say one word about a new development, to which the hon. Member for the Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) referred, and that is the new arrangements for post-graduate awards which have been recently announced. Briefly, this means that all students who want to do research or advanced courses in science and technology can apply for post-graduate awards to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, whilst those who want to do similar courses in arts can apply to the Ministry. The important thing is that this means for the most part that local education authorities will in fuure be relieved of this task. These new arrangements will ensure that people fitted for this high-grade work will be carefully selected on a national basis for awards, and there will be additional awards for science and technology to meet the expanding needs of universities.
It is the Ministry's intention to assess students who want these awards on their own means and not on those of their parents. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research already apply that principle.

Mr. Mulley: I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that important decision and ask if he could, when he comes to decide the amount, take note of the excellent review produced by the National Union of Students on the conditions of such post-graduate students.

Mr. Vosper: I am aware of that, but I cannot announce the amount tonight because this matter is still under consideration, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciative remarks about the decision.
I should like to say a word about selection, which is possibly a more difficult problem. My right hon. Friend's policy is expressed in Circular 263 and is based on an agreement between local authority associations and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The general basis for this agreement was that while university and college authorities are solely responsible for admissions, local education authorities are solely responsible for making their awards. It was agreed that the minimum standard to be

applied in selecting a candidate for award should be passes in advanced level in two subjects in the G.C.E., with satisfactory evidence of general education. That is now accepted as the minimum standard for consideration by every local education authority in the country. I emphasise "consideration" because that is all that Circular 263 required—that every local education authority should consider candidates with two G.C.E. passes at the advanced level; in recent weeks we have achieved complete uniformity on that.
I appreciate that probably my hon. Friend had in mind that some local authorities give a different interpretation of "consideration", but if he has evidence of any local authority which is not applying the terms of the Circular, I hope he will give me details. Of course, however much uniformity is achieved, I do not think we can expect every area in the country to produce the same percentage of university students, because the level of ability and intelligence must vary, but I accept that if this power is to be left with local authorities there may be variations of this nature, and it is the policy of my right hon. Friend, with some success, to keep these variations to a minimum. The fact that now there has been complete acceptance of Circular 263 is evidence of an advance in that direction. But I feel that while it may be possible to select a limited number of state scholars on a national basis, it will not be possible to select all those who are to enter the university.
I do not believe that a central authority can claim to know whether a young man who is clearly not of the highest ability, as a State scholar is, has other equally important qualities which make him a suitable person to go to a University. I think we should ponder long and well before we take this power out of the hands of the local authorities. But my right hon. Friend is anxious to press even further for uniformity and will investigate any case of unfair discrimination or restriction which is brought to his notice.
My hon. Friend referred to the expansion of the universities. It is true that we expect a very considerable expansion in the universities, and my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems which


are arising and is in close touch with all the other bodies concerned in this matter. He is now in the process of thinking out the likely effect of these developments on awards policy. The system of awards has increasingly adapted itself to the needs of the post-war expansion of the universities and I see no reason why it should fail to meet the anticipated expansion in the next ten years. I accept that our policy must be to ensure that young people wishing for and capable of receiving university education should not be deprived of it.
I have noted with particular interest the suggestion about a working party and I accept that the time is coming when, because of the triennial review, because of the expansion of the universities and because it is seven years since the last working party reported, the problem ought to be reviewed. But I should not

like tonight to commit myself to saying that the working party is the best solution; my right hon. Friend will give the matter careful consideration.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park and my hon. Friend in the praise they have given to the National Union of Students, who have responded very reasonably over the last two or three years to our awards policy and who are co-operating very favourably with the Ministry. It is not possible to agree to everything for which they ask; if we did, their Grants Section would go out of existence. I have personal experience of their co-operation and I thank them, as I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.